Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB -A‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Balakrishna Nimmala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 10.07.2025 for the A.Y 2016-17.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17 against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld.AO”) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, the assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (“Ld.AR”) invited our attention to the documents filed before the Ld. CIT(A), which are placed in the paper book from page numbers 1 to 73, including Copy of bank statements, Details of deposits and withdrawals, Details of receipts from customers and Copies of ledger accounts and statements relating to payments to agencies. He further invited our attention to page no. 29 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and demonstrated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without considering or appreciating the submissions and documentary evidence filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not pointed out any deficiency or discrepancy in the documents furnished before him. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) suffers from non-consideration of relevant evidence, and the matter requires re-examination on the basis of documents already filed. He further submitted that the assessee could not properly respond during the assessment proceedings also. Accordingly, he prayed that instead of remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(A), the Page 3 of 6 issue may be remanded directly to the file of the Ld. AO for deciding the matter afresh.
5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and objected to the remand, submitting that adequate opportunities were provided earlier, which were not availed by the assessee.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. It is evident from the material placed in the paper book that substantial documentary evidence relating to bank transactions, receipts and payments was filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we have gone through third para of page no. 29 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) which is to the following effect:
On perusal of the above, we find that the impugned order does not show any discussion, verification, or reasoning regarding the evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A). The order is therefore non-speaking on vital aspects of the matter. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the issue
Page 4 of 6 requires proper examination and verification of the evidence filed and any further evidence the assessee may submit. Further, the Ld. AR has submitted that the case of the assessee could not be prosecuted on merits before the Ld. AO also. Hence, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo adjudication, so that the issue can be decided on merits after due appreciation of all relevant documents. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, examine all documents and evidence filed by the assessee in support of its claims and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all relevant evidence and submissions in support of its claims before the Ld. AO. The assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in the remand proceedings.