BUSHETTY NAGARAJU,BANAGANAPALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDYAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating the issue on merit. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to explain its case before the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared a certain income, but the Assessing Officer found unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 28,19,000/- during the demonetization period. The assessee failed to provide details for these deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding the merits of the case, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the unexplained cash deposits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69A,Section 133(6),Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Busheety Nagaraju Vs. Income Tax Officer BANAGANAPALLY, Kurnool Ward – 1 PAN:AMRPN2666G NANDYAL (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri G.Subramanyam, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2024 आदेश/ORDER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated07/06/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing the learned DR, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 7/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,93,460/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served on the assessee to which the appellant appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite details. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessement proceedings, obtained bank statements from the bank in terms of section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the Assessing Officer found that the assessee deposited Rs.28,19,000/- during the demonetization period. The assessee has not filed any details to explain the source for the cash deposits into Andhra Bank amounting to Rs.28,19,000/- during the demonetization period. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) has also passed an ex-parte order since the appellant has failed to file the relevant evidences to explain the source for cash deposits which is evident from Para 3 of the order of the learned CIT (A) where on first 3 occasions, there is no response from the assessee and on subsequent 2 dates, the assessee sought for adjournments. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that in the case of non-appearance of the appellant, the appeal should be disposed off on merit. In the present case, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on technical ground, however, does not adjudicated the issue on merit. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer to explain its case. Thus, I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to reconsider the issue denovo after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer and file all the details without seeking any adjournment. The assessee is further directed to pay a nominal cost of Rs.2000/- at the Telangana State Aide Legal Authorities at the Hon'ble Telangana High Court and furnish proof of payment with the Registry.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026