BURRE SREENIVASA MADHURI,RAJAHMUNDRY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 269/VIZ/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which sustained an addition of Rs. 11,76,100 as unexplained investment in immovable property under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's income was initially assessed for the year 2016-17, and upon reopening of the case, it was found that she had made an unexplained investment in property. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount as unexplained investment after the assessee failed to substantiate the source of funds used for the property purchase. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) and thus remitted the case back for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652883 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Gift; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record
• Section: 147; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िीरिल्ली दुर्ाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाक ृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri F-24/4, APPM Township Mallayyapeta quarters Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AXRPB1216F] v. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1) Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Veerabhadrapuram Kambala Cheruvu Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 16.06.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073628864(1) dated 24.02.2025 for the I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri Page No. 2 A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.03.2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 10.06.2016 admitting a total income of Rs.2,64,730/-. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information that assessee, along with her husband, purchased an immovable property worth Rs. 33,60,000/- on 23.12.2015. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO\"] noticed that the husband's source of his share was explained, but the assessee's contribution of Rs.11,76,100/- remained unexplained. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed the funds came from gifts received from her father, father-in-law, and a gold loan. However, Ld. AO noticed that bank statements did not support these claims, and her husband's assessment records did not confirm the Rs. 10,00,000/- gift. Thus, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making addition of Rs.11,76,100/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices did not file any supporting documents on her contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri Page No. 3 bythe assessee as called for. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal exparte based on the material available on record. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised following grounds of appeal: - “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 (Appels) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,76,100/- made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment in immovable property. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Ld. AO, Ld.AR pleaded that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order and pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri Page No. 4 7. We have heard both the sidesand perused the material available on record. On a perusal of theLd.CIT(A) order, it is observed that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Ld. AO, in the interest of providing substantial justice, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decide the case on merits. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June,2025. Sd/- (िीरिल्ली दुर्ाा राि) (VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (एस बालाक ृष्णन) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.06.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS I.T.A.No.269/VIZ/2025 Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri Page No. 5 आदेशकीप्रनतनलनपअग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to :- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri F-24/4, APPM Township Mallayyapeta quarters Mallayyapeta, Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1) Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Veerabhadrapuram Kambala Cheruvu Rajahmundry - 533105 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 "