Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

ITAT Hyderabad Rejects Section 69A on Recorded Rent Payments, Remands Verification

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12540
Case Name
Subba Rayudu Kalikiri Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2021-22
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Subba Rayudu Kalikiri Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

Summary: The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, comprising Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President, disposed of ITA Nos. 1279 & 1331/Hyd./2026 for Assessment Year 2021-2022 by a common order dated 05.08.2026. The appeals arose from separate orders dated 11.02.2026 and 12.02.2026 of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating respectively to the assessment under section 143(3) and penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The assessee had filed his return on 30.08.2021 declaring total income of Rs.14,06,110/-. During scrutiny assessment, additions were made towards HRA, performance duty, food allowance, Leave Travelling Allowance (LTA), NPS, deduction under section 80E and cash-paid rent. The assessment table recorded the additions at Rs.1,45,972/- for HRA, Rs.37,746/- for performance duties, Rs.64,856/- for food allowance, Rs.1,24,785/- for LTA, Rs.1,39,654/- for NPS ER, Rs.1,17,081/- under section 80E and Rs.9,96,000/- towards rent in cash, resulting in assessed income of Rs.30,32,204/- or Rs.30,32,200/-.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee did not press the additions relating to HRA, NPS, performance duty and deduction under section 80E. The Tribunal accordingly confirmed those additions as not pressed.

In relation to conveyance and food allowance, the assessee submitted that the expenditure represented fuel and telephone expenses incurred in performance of duties, with payments made through Card or UPI, and that the amounts of Rs.19,602/- and Rs.26,678/- were reimbursements. The Revenue contended that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim with documentary evidence. The Tribunal observed that the expenses appeared to relate to fuel and telephone bills claimed as reimbursement and held that the Assessing Officer ought to have verified the expenses and their reimbursement by the company. The issue was therefore remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after verification and examination of the details and evidence furnished by the assessee.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,497

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.