RAMINENI VENKATESWARULU,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NARASARAOPET

PDF · subscribers
ITA 538/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 March 2025AY 2015-16Bench: us: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.10 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without addressing or passing a speaking order on the additional documentary evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The matter was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal after considering the additional evidence and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, who had not filed a return of income for AY 2015-16, was subjected to reassessment under Section 147 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO added Rs. 80,81,995 as unexplained credits under Section 69A found in the assessee's bank accounts. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte, upholding the addition, as the assessee failed to participate in proceedings and explain the credits, despite the assessee having filed additional documentary evidence under Rule 46A which the CIT(A) did not consider.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering additional documentary evidence filed by the assessee, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Ramineni Venkateswarlu, Gonuguntlavari Palem Vilalge, Pedakancherla Post, Vinukonda Mandalam, Guntur. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Narasaraopet.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →