DEVARAPALLI BHARATHAMMA,HYDERABAD V. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 355/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Devarapalli Bharathamma, the appellant, who did not file her income tax return for the assessment year 2015-2016 despite having made significant financial transactions and cash deposits amounting to Rs.44 lakhs in her bank account, as per the Non-Filer Monitoring System of the Department. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and issued a best judgment assessment order under section 144 read with section 147, determining her total income at Rs.1,84,03,629 by making an addition under section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) sustained this addition after the assessee failed to respond to notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately decide the matter on merit as required under section 250(6) of the Act and thus remitted the matter back for a thorough re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 398119 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.355/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Devarapalli Bharathamma, Kongra Kalan, Ibrahimpatan Post, Rangannaguda, KV Ranga Reddy Dist., PAN BKFPD0855G vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9 (1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.12.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of 2 ITA.No.355/Hyd./2025 income. As per information available with the Insight Portal under NMS [Non-Filer Monitoring System] for the F.Y. 2014- 2015 of the Department, the assessee has made huge financial transactions and cash deposits of Rs.44 lakhs in her bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] and notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer had also issued notices u/sec.142(1) and 144 of the Act. Since, there were no response from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed his best Judgment assessment order u/sec.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 29.01.2024 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,84,03,629/- by making addition u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) also issued various notices u/sec.250 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not respond to the notices nor 3 ITA.No.355/Hyd./2025 filed any submissions, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer passed best judgment assessment order u/sec.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. And the First Appellate Authority i.e., the learned CIT(A) has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer without deciding the matter in issue on merit as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act, according to which, the learned CIT(A) has to give reasons for decision and adjudication thereof, even if, the assessee did not appear before him. Before us, the assessee has filed additional evidences which goes to the root of the matter and has to be verified by the lower authorities. In view of the above, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide 4 ITA.No.355/Hyd./2025 the issue in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee is directed to furnish relevant evidences before the CIT(A) to substantiate her case. The assessee is also directed to pay sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs for non- appearance before the lower authorities and above costs should be paid to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and the assessee should furnish relevant evidence to the Registry of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.06.2025 Sd/- Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] [MANJUNATHA G] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 05th June, 2025 VBP 5 ITA.No.355/Hyd./2025 Copy to 1. Devarapalli Bharathamma, 1-42, Kongra Kalan, Ibrahimpatan Post, Rangannaguda, KV Ranga Reddy Dist., 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9 (1), IT Towers, Hyderabad. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4. The DR ITAT “B” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// "