RAMAMURTHY NAIDU MARRAPU,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM
Facts
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 80,13,025 to the assessee's income based on bank account information. The assessee claimed the account did not belong to them and provided certificates from two banks stating this, and that their actual account details were different.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, despite the assessee not appearing. The Tribunal found it a fit case to quash the order and restore the issue to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the disputed bank account?
Sections Cited
144, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No.529/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramamurthy Naidu Marrapu Vs. Income Tax Officer Bobbili Vizianagaram [PAN : AMAPM2722K] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri M.Muralidhar, AR (through Hybrid hearing) रधजस्व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 12/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 07/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 17/11/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (“learned CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in the case of Ramamurthy Naidu Marrapu (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that basing on the AIR information available in ITBA that an amount of Rs.80,13,025/-was deposited in the bank account No. 34809023449 with State Bank of India, Ganapavaram branch linked to the PAN AMAPM2722K, learned Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee and recording that in spite of sufficient opportunities assessee failed to comply
with such notices, learned Assessing Officer added the entire amount to the income of the assessee by order dated 21/10/2019 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the order of the learned CIT(A) shows that the assessee did not enter appearance before the learned CIT(A) also and therefore based on the material before him, learned CIT(A) upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the assessee.
Case of the assessee before us is that the account No.34809023449 with State Bank of India, Ganapavaram branch does not belong to the assessee, but the PAN : AMAPM2722K belonging to the assessee was wrongly linked to it and as a matter of fact the certificate issued by the SBI, Ganapavaram to the effect that the assessee never had any account with their branch and the account No. 34809023449 belongs to the Tirumala service station (Indian oil petrol bunk) was produced before the authorities. Assessee also produced the certificate dated 1/2/2025 issued by SBI, Bobbili branch stating that the account number of the assessee is 40912895555 and has only one account with their branch. This certificate further shows that there is no account on the name of the assessee linked to the PAN : AMAPM2722K.
Though the learned CIT(A) observed in the impugned order that section 250(6) of the Act expressly embodies the provision that if an assessee fails to appear before the learned CIT(A) and fails to submit the relevant documents, the learned CIT(A) is restricted to the disposal of the appeal based on the merits available on record, but the learned CIT(A), perhaps inadvertently, missed this point and failed to refer to the merits of the case but simply dismissed the appeal. As a matter of fact section 250 (6) of the Act is not complied in this appeal.
For all these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that is a fit case to quash the impugned order and to restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to consider the certificates issued by the banks in the light of the plea taken by the assessee that the assessee never did any business nor did he own the account number 34809023449 of Ganapavaram branch of SBI,
and take a view according to law. We hold and order so. Learned Assessing Officer will consider this material after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and take a view according to law. Grounds are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th March, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BALAKRISHNAN S.) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 07/03/2025 L.Rama, SPS Copy forwarded to: 1. Shri Ramamurthy Naidu Marrapu, 3-5, Narasimhunipeta, Kannampeta, Bobbili 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram 3. The Pr.CIT, Visakhapatnam 4. The DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. GUARD File
