KOTHAKAPU SRIDHAR REDDY ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 546/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee were indeed missed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income due to unexplained bank deposits. The assessee claims that documents and submissions provided to the CIT(A) were overlooked, leading to the upholding of the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered all the evidence submitted by the assessee before upholding the addition made by the AO.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 07/08/2024

अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Ms.S.Sandhya, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 07/08/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 29/08/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 22/03/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Kothakapu Sridhar Reddy (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the learned AO made the addition on the ground that though the bank accounts revealed the deposit of huge amounts, the assessee did not produce any evidence to discharge the primary onus to explain the source of the monies. Though the assessee submitted the documents and also the written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings on 30/05/2022, it missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) recorded that the assessee failed to explain the nature and sources of investments and not responded to the notices of the authorities, either during the scrutiny as well as the appellate proceedings. The Ld.AR, therefore, submits that the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that the assessee could not offer satisfactory explanation. In these circumstances, she prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to bring the documents filed by the assessee to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

Though the Ld.DR opposed the request made on behalf of the assessee, the fact remains that the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee missed the attention of the Ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, we deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the written submissions and documents filed on behalf of the assessee and to pass appropriate order according to law. We hold and order so.

4.

In the result, appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →