MEDA LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY NAVEEN KUMAR ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , MYSURU
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte despite the assessee's uploaded submissions. Prima facie, there appeared to be a duplication of cash deposit addition under section 69A of the Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was directed against the CIT(A)'s ex parte order as the assessee had not complied with hearing notices. The assessee's AR claimed partial compliance and submitted that cash deposits in Andhra Bank were duplicated due to a merger with Union Bank of India.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order and whether there was a duplication of addition of cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE
Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu
O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice-President :
This appeal as the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 12.12.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2013-2014.
At the very outset, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order for the reason that the assessee has not complied with various notices issued from the Office of the first appellate authority. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had partially complied with the notice issued on 01.12.2023 by uploading various details as placed at pages 107 and 108 of the paper book filed by the assessee. Copy of the acknowledgement for having uploaded the above documents are placed at page 107 of the paper book. The Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Naveen Kumar. learned AR submitted that there has been duplication of addition u/s.69A of the Act (cash deposits). It was submitted that Andhra Bank had merged with Union Bank of India (SB A/c.No.86910100003509) . It was submitted that by mistake the cash deposits in Andhra Bank has been duplicated for addition for the relevant assessment year. Copy of the bank account statement of both Andhra Bank and Union Bank of India are placed from pages 71 to 101 of the paper book. The learned AR submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, since the above said discrepancy needs to be examined, the matter may be restored to the files of the AO.
The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A).
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026