Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning reassessment and penalty under the Income-Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A. The assessee initially declared a lower income which was revised upwards during reassessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being abroad. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (LIC premium receipts, educational loan certificate, bank statement) submitted by the assessee, as the assessee was not available to present them earlier. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with the additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of deductions claimed by the assessee was justified, and if additional evidence should be admitted for re-adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 271(1)(c), 148A(b), 148, 149(1)(b), 80C, 80E, 24(b), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, both dated 20.03.2025, which in turn arises from the respective orders
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 12.05.2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17 and under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.01.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
As the captioned appeals are inextricably interlinked and interwoven, therefore, they are being taken up together and disposed of vide a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) regarding quantum assessment in wherein the impugned order has been assailed by the assessee on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passed u/s 147 of the IT Act dt: 12/05/2023 passed by the Assessment Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC vide orders u/s 250 of the IT Act dt: 20/03/25 is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred both on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA of Rs.3,84,267/- made vide assessment order passed u/s.147 which is based on time barred notice u/s.148A(b), time barred notice u/s. 148 and invalid order passed u/s.148A(d) as per provisions of section 149(1)(b), since, the reassessment notice is issued for less than Rs.50 lacks escaped income for the period beyond 3 years.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred both on facts and in law in upholding the disallowance of deductions under Chapter VIA of Rs.3,84,267/- made vide assessment order passed u/s.147 without appreciating the facts and the evidences.
Any other ground/grounds that may be pleased to be allowed by the Honorable Tribunal at the time of hearing.”
Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2016- 17 on 24.09.2016, declaring an income of Rs. 7,28,600/-, and had raised a claim for a refund of Rs. 1,13,950/- (out of total TDS of Rs. 1,86,790/-).
Page. No 2
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao 4. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee to place on record documentary evidence to support his claim for multi- facet deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction under section 80D: Rs. 50,000/-; and (vi) deduction under section 80E: Rs. 2,50,000/-
In reply, the assessee submitted that he was in possession of evidence for some of the deductions claimed by him. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28.07.2022, wherein he called upon the assessee to file his return of income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income on 03.12.2021, wherein he disclosed his total income at Rs. 13,98,303/- and claimed deductions under Chapter VI- A to the tune of Rs. 3,06,277/-. As the assessee had failed to support his aforesaid claim of deductions under Chapter VI-A aggregating to Rs. 3,06,277/-, therefore, the AO rejected the same and computed his income at Rs. 13,98,303/-. As the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had failed to comply with the notices issued by the AO, therefore, he was constrained to complete the assessment vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.05.2023, wherein after disallowing the deductions claimed by the assessee the income was determined at Rs.13,98,303/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), wherein he assailed the disallowance made by the assessee of his claim for deductions viz (i) deduction under section 80C: Rs.1,50,000/-; (ii) deduction under section 80E: Rs.1,56,277/-; and (iii) deduction under section 24(b): Rs.77,990/-. However, the Page. No 3
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao CIT(A) did not find favor with the contentions advanced by the assessee and dismissed his appeal.
Aggrieved, the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused 8. the orders of the authorities below, and considered the material available on record.
Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for 9. short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of appeal, submitted that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. Elaborating upon the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld.AR submitted that the same had crept in as the assessee during the relevant period had gone abroad and was not available in India. The Ld.AR to support his contention has taken us through an application filed by the assessee along with a supporting “affidavit” dated 07.06.2025.
Per contra, Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Learned Senior Departmental Representative 10. (for short “Ld. DR”) did not object to the seeking of condonation of the delay by the assessee.
We have given thoughtful consideration and are of the view that, as the delay 11. involved in filing the present appeal is not inordinate and is further substantiated by justifiable reasons, therefore, the same merits condonation.
On merits, Shri B. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of Page. No 4
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao appeal, submitted that the assessee has filed an application seeking liberty to raise additional grounds of appeal, which, as per instruction, he seeks not to press. Accordingly, the application filed by the assessee for admission of additional grounds is dismissed as not pressed.
13. Elaborating further, the Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee has filed an application seeking permission for admission of certain documents as additional evidence which will substantiate his claim for deductions that had been declined by the A.O. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking liberty for admission of certain documents as additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 viz., (i) copy of LIC premium receipts (Annexure 1); (ii) copy of certificate issued by the HDFC Credila from whom the assessee had obtained the educational loan (Annexure–2); and (iii) copy of statement of bank account 32225435327 held by the assessee with State Bank of India, Ibrahimpatnam Branch, Andhra Pradesh (Annexure – 3). The Ld.AR submitted that as the assessee at the time of proceedings before the lower authorities was not available in India, therefore, for the said reason, he was unable to furnish the aforesaid documents in the course of the proceedings before them.
14. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that as the aforesaid documents have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the assessee’s claim for deductions which have been disallowed by the AO, therefore, the same, in all fairness and in the interest of justice be admitted.
Page. No 5
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao 15. Per contra, Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) did not seriously object to the seeking of admission of the aforementioned documents filed by the assessee as additional evidence before us.
We have thoughtfully considered the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of the aforementioned documents as additional evidence before us under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. In our view, as the assessee during the course of the proceedings before the authorities below had gone abroad and was not available in India, therefore, for the said reason, he had failed to place on record the aforementioned documents to support his claim for deductions before the lower authorities.
We are of the firm conviction that as the above-mentioned documents filed by the assessee before us as additional evidence, prima facie, substantiate and support his claim for deductions, which, as observed by us hereinabove, is the core issue involved in the present appeal, therefore, the same, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, are admitted
As the aforementioned documentary evidence that have been filed by the assessee for the first time before us under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rule, 1963, and thus, were not there before the authorities below, therefore, in all fairness the matter requires to be set-aside to the file of the A.O with a direction to re-adjudicate the aforesaid claim of the assessee in the backdrop of the above-mentioned documents as had been filed before us as additional evidence.
Page. No 6
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao 19. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations.
We shall now take the appeal filed by the assessee in CIT(A), dated 20.03.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.01.2024.
At the threshold, we find that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal, which is explained by the Ld.AR to have been crept in for the same reason as had resulted to the delay in filing the above-mentioned quantum appeal in ITA No. 379/VIZ/220025. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, condone the delay involved in filing the present appeal.
As we have set-aside the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 20.03.2025, which in turn arises from the quantum assessment framed by the A.O vide his order under section 147 of the Act dated 12.05.2023, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the A.O under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.01.2024 is on the same terms set-aside to the file of the A.O to take up the same after re-adjudicating the quantum assessment as has been set-aside to his file.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Page. No 7
I.T.A.No.378 & 379/VIZ/2025 Guntupalli Nageswara Rao 24. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th February, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (ओंकारेश्वर धिदारा) (रिीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2026 **Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Guntupalli Nageswara Rao D.No. 8-81/1, Kondapalli Balaji Street Ibrahaimpatnam Mandal Krishna – 521228 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer – Ward -1(1) Vijayawada 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 4.