SHAHARYAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, adhering to principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, made cash deposits from the sale of property gifted to his son. Notices were sent to an old address, and the assessee only became aware of the demand after bank attachment. The Assessing Officer added the deposits as unexplained money.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication considering the assessee's circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.
Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07/03/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen deriving income from pension and there is no other source of income. The assessee has made cash deposits received from sale of property of his son which was executed on 20.10.2016. The assessee had gifted the property to ITA 462 of 2024 Shaharyar Hyderabad his son by executing gift deed on 26.09.2016. The assessee did not receive any notice since the notices were sent on old address of the assessee where he was residing earlier and it is only after bank attachment of the assessee, the assessee came to know of income tax demand recovery and thereafter received notices from the authorities on 18.02.2020. The assessee has no knowledge of computer operations and hence could not check and reply to the notices sent through e-mail by the Department. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.3,51,975/- and cash deposits from sale of property of Rs.10,43,727/- and treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.
The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) has decided the appeal against the assessee and while doing so, the request of the assessee to file some additional documents which shows the availability of cash with the assessee was not decided. It was submitted that the son of the assessee had sold the property and the cash was received by the son which was deposited into the bank account of the assessee without assessee’s knowledge. It was submitted that the assessee was able to show the availability of cash, however, since the documents have not been admitted by the learned CIT (A), the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The learned AR submitted that given a chance, the assessee would be able to demonstrate the availability of cash from disclosed/admitted source. The assessee further prayed that the matter may be ITA 462 of 2024 Shaharyar Hyderabad remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for resh adjudication.
Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee should be vigilant in prosecution of the case and should have filed the proper application for admission of the additional evidences/documents giving all cogent reasons as to why the assessee was not able to produce the documents before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the assessee was ex-parte before the Assessing Officer, which clearly shows the callous attitude of the assessee. Hence the orders of the lower authorities should be upheld and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.
We have heard the rival arguments and perused the material available on record. Undoubtedly, the assessee has failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer was left with no option but to pass ex-parte assessment order in the case of the assessee. On appeal, the assessee requested for admission of the additional evidences, albiet without any application and as such, the learned CIT (A) has left with no option but decided the issue in accordance with law without admitting additional evidences. Now since the assessee has submitted before us the application for admission of the additional documents and also prays that the matter may kindly be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass fresh
ITA 462 of 2024 Shaharyar Hyderabad assessment order. Needless to say, while doing so, the Assessing Officer shall abide by the principle of natural justice and grant sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee including producing the requisite documents/ evidences to prove his case. However, this is subject to a cost of Rs.3000/- which may be deposited by the assessee with the Telangana State Legal Aid Authorities at the Hon'ble Telangana High Court within a period of one month from the date of this order and necessary payment slip should be submitted with the Registry. We hold and direct accordingly.
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 →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026