PEDDI LALITHA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Smt. Sree Latha Yerabati (“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 07.03.2025 for the A.Y 2016-17.

3. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. AO ought to have considered the fact that the assessee had sources for explaining the deposits made with M/s Kapil Chits (Hyderabad) Pvt Limited.

4. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. AO ought to have clarified as to how the amount of Rs. 59,40,000/-, the subject matter of addition, has been arrived at.

5. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. AO and the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the investment in the chits has flown from the salary income of the assessee.

6. The assessee may be permitted to add, alter, modify or drop any ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the previous approval of the Hon’ble ITAT.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld.AO”) for Assessment Year 2016-17, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 26.03.2022. However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not comply with the notices issued, and consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the course of hearing, the Page 2 of 6 Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) placed detailed submissions and relied upon various documentary evidences filed in the paper book. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities. In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 5.6 to 5.11 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect:

5. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the appeal could not be adjudicated on merits due to non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Furthermore, after hearing the submissions of the Ld. AR and examining the documents relied upon, we find that the assessment order appears to have been Page 4 of 6 passed without proper appreciation of the factual matrix of the case. Therefore, in view of the above and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to present its case on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. The assessee shall be at liberty to file any evidence or submissions in support of its claim.