MANI KISHORE REDDY BURGAPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through virtual mode) AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA No.170/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally, Vs. The ACIT, Circle – 5(1), Plot No.567, Road No.19, Hyderabad. Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033. PAN : AGNPB5055B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate. (appeared through virtual mode) Revenue by: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, SR.AR Date of hearing: 15.04.2024 Date of pronouncement: 29.04.2024
O R D E R PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.
This appeal is filed by Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“ld. CIT(A)”), dated 05.12.2023 for the AY 2021-22.
2 ITA No.170/Hyd/2024
At the outset, it is seen that, there is a delay of 18 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation petition and after hearing the learned DR, the delay of 18 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under :
“1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the appellant; 2) The learned CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity to the appellant; 3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.58,50,000/- representing the cash deposits made into the bank account; 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that said amounts were already accounted for and should not have been treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T.Act; 5) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.71,80,000/- by treating the cost of purchase of flat at Vizag as the income of the appellant assessable u/s 69A of the I.T.Act 6) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the appellant had the required sources and should not have treated any of the above two as the income assessable u/s 69A and the income as taxable u/s 115BBE of the I.T.Act. 7) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;”
3 ITA No.170/Hyd/2024
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary, House property and interest during the assessment year 2021-22, filed his returns of income on 23/03/2022 declaring total income of Rs.14,93,830/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS on the issue “Large Cash deposits in Bank and Purchase of property”. The assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (“learned assessing officer”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 22/12/2022 making an addition of Rs.1,30,30,000/-.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding as under :
“5. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of ‘Statement of Facts’. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated at table at page no 2. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. It can be safely presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.” 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us, contending that the authorities erred in declining sufficient opportunity to the assessee in proving the cash deposited in the bank and investment made in flat at Vishakhapatnam. It is further contended that the
4 ITA No.170/Hyd/2024
learned CIT(A) has passed the order without providing proper opportunity. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced and it is only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce the documents. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.
Per contra, learned DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the authorities that the assessee failed to produce the details with regards to the deposit of cash in the bank and investment made in flat at Vishakhapatnam, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now that the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of his contentions and get the matter disposed
5 ITA No.170/Hyd/2024
of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee and, accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) in favour of Prime Minister National Relief Fund which shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th April, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 29th April, 2024. TYNM/sps
6 ITA No.170/Hyd/2024
Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Mani Kishore Reddy Burgapally, Plot No.567, Road No.19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033. 2 The ACIT, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. 3 Prl.CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order
