KANDULA RANGA REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 89/VIZ/2022Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 July 2022AY 2015-20167 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the AO failed to consider the assessee's savings from earlier years' salary income. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the investment was met from own savings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 31 days due to shifting of office and change of address. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated an advance payment of Rs. 29,89,500/- for immovable property as unexplained money under Section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and whether the AO was justified in treating the advance payment as unexplained investment without considering the assessee's savings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 153C,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: CA प्रत्यधथी की ओर से /
Hearing: 27/06/2022

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:-

ननधधाररती/ The Assessee – Kandula Ranga Reddy C/o. MV Prasad, 1. CA, D.NO.60-7-13, Ground Floor, Siddhartha Nagar, 4th Lane, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520010. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2. Central Circle, Stalin Towers, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520007.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →