ALURI YOGENDRA KUMAR L/R OF LATE ALURI MADHUSUDHANA RAO,GUNTUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

ITA 173/VIZ/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Aluri Yogendra Kumar, the legal representative of the late Aluri Madhusudhana Rao, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte, leading to the current proceedings. The primary issue arose from the assessee's failure to file a return for the assessment year 2017-18, coupled with unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, which were assessed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee or his representative during multiple hearings at the CIT(A) level, which led to an ex-parte decision. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633668 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य, एिं श्री एस बालाक ृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.173/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Aluri Yogendra Kumar {L/R of (Late) Aluri Madhusudhana Rao D.No. 1-64, Mandadam Thulluru, Guntur – 522503 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: BPVPA5235G] v. Income Tax Officer – Ward -2(3) Income Tax Office Lakshmipuram Main Road Guntur – 522006 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri GVN Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 10.06.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JM: 1. The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- I.T.A. No.173/VIZ/2025 Aluri Yogendra Kumar Page No. 2 25/107103346(1) dated 09.12.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18 arising out of order passed under section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 31.10.2019. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that the assessee could not file the appeal due to viral fever with Fibromyalgia (Medical certificate filed). He is under treatment and was bed rest during the period from 20.02.2025 to 20.03.2025 and pleaded that delay may be condoned. Ld. DR not objected to the submissions of the assessee. 3. We have heard both the sides and we find that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay, accordingly the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. On the basis of information received that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period, notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Assessee failed to comply to the notices. Therefore, Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO\"] proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.18,48,200/- as unexplained money under section 69A of I.T.A. No.173/VIZ/2025 Aluri Yogendra Kumar Page No. 3 the Act. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in not giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant and in dismissing the appeal ex-parte. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.18,48,500 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 6. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to pursue his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Ld. DR on the other hand objected to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assessee, however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). Under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A) had no other I.T.A. No.173/VIZ/2025 Aluri Yogendra Kumar Page No. 4 option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, Ld. DR pleaded that the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities do not call for any interference and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the record and gone into the orders of the Revenue Authorities. On examining the facts of the case, we find that though Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on the given dates of hearing. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) left with no other option except to pass ex-parte order based on the material available on record. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, we find strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. Therefore, considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld. AR and the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and remit back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to consider afresh in accordance with law. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate I.T.A. No.173/VIZ/2025 Aluri Yogendra Kumar Page No. 5 orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025. Sd/- (एस बालाक ृष्णन) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (िी. दुर्ाा राि) (V. DURGA RAO) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 12/06/2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Aluri Yogendra Kumar {L/R of (Late) Aluri Madhusudhana Rao D.No. 1-64, Mandadam Thulluru, Guntur – 522503 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer – Ward -2(3) Income Tax Office Lakshmipuram Main Road Guntur – 522006 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम/DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल/ Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam "