Balakrishna Nimmala Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Assessee challenged CIT(A)’s order passed in reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B. Before CIT(A), Assessee had filed extensive evidence—bank statements, customer receipts, ledger accounts, deposit/withdrawal details, & payment records. Tribunal observed that CIT(A)’s order contained no discussion, verification, analysis or reasoning on any of these materials & simply rejected the appeal without dealing with merits.
Assessee requested that instead of sending the matter back to CIT(A), it be remanded directly to AO, as the assessment itself lacked proper verification & the case could not be effectively presented earlier. Tribunal accepted this request & held that the order suffered from non-application of mind & violated principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, Tribunal set aside CIT(A) order & restored the entire matter to AO for denovo adjudication, directing fresh examination of all evidences & ensuring a proper opportunity of hearing. Assessee must cooperate without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by Shri Balakrishna Nimmala (“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 10.07.2025 for the A.Y 2016-17.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law,
2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.60,24,112 as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act on the alleged ground that the appellant in spite of giving sufficient opportunities failed to furnish any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings,
3. The Id. CIT(A) having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him on the reasons offered by the appellant for not participating in the assessment proceedings, ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not filed any evidence in the assessment proceedings,
4. The Id, CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the submissions & evidences filed before him during the appeal proceedings. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the’ submissions filed.
(Tax Effect: R8,18,61,451)
5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.
29.07.2025
Nellore
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17 against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld.AO”) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). However, the assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
