JAGADESWARI MAHENDRAN,PUTTUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI

ITA 727/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jagadeshwari Mahendran, the appellant, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2018-2019 despite significant financial transactions, including the purchase of immovable property worth Rs.9,15,00,000 and receiving interest income from various sources. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-disclosure of taxable income. The ITO made additions to the assessee's income as unexplained investments and interest income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful due to non-appearance and non-submission of required documents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to procedural defects, including non-signature and non-verification of the appeal documents as required under section 140 of the IT Act and Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708360 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.BALAKRISHNA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Jagadeshwari Mahendran, PUTTUR – 517 583. Chittoor District. PAN BCUPM9885J vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), TIRUPATI – 517 501. Chittoor District. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.02.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had not filed return of income u/sec.139(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short \"the 2 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 Act\"]. As per NMS/AIMS data extracted from ITBA system, the assessee has purchased immovable property totaling to Rs.9,15,00,000/- (Rs.1,35,00,00/- + Rs.7,80,00,000/-) during the year under consideration. Further, the assessee has received interest income of Rs.28,725/-from Apollo Tyres Limited and also received interest income of Rs.4,613/- from Karur Vysya Bank Limited during the year under consideration. Since assessee has not filed ITR and offered income from these transaction to tax, the said income of assessee has escaped assessment and needs to be brought under taxation. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 12.04.2022 u/sec.148A of the Act calling the assessee to furnish the explanation. Further, the Assessing Officer also issued various notices u/sec.142(1) and show cause notice u/sec.144 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and in absence of explanation offered by the assessee with relevant 3 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,15,33,338/- by making additions of Rs.9,15,00,000/- u/sec.69 of the Act as unexplained investment and interest income of Rs.33,338/- as against the NIL return of income filed by the assessee vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) had sustained the additions 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. At the very outset, it is noticed that, the Registry has issued ‘defect notice’ dated 15.05.2025 calling the assessee to rectify the following defects : (i) Grounds before ITAT not signed by the person authorised u/sec.140 of the IT Act. 4 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 (ii) Grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal not arising out of the order appealed against. (iii) Grounds of appeal filed before Tribunal not in conformity with Rule 8 of ITAT Rules, 1963. (iv) Memorandum of appeal not (property) signed/verified by the person authorized u/sec.140 of the IT Act, 1961. (v) Order appealed against is not uploaded. 6. However, the assessee did not rectify the above defects and also not appeared before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal or filed written submissions or letter seeking for adjournment of the appeal. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal, after hearing the Learned CIT- DR. 7. Shri B Bala Krishna, learned CIT-DR submitted that, the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities despite service of statutory notices calling the assessee to submit the explanation along with supporting documentary evidence. In absence of explanation and 5 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 relevant documents, the Assessing Officer has made the additions. Even during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not appear. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. He further drew the attention of the Bench that, this lackadaisical approach of the assessee has continued before the Tribunal too and, therefore, this kind of practice by assessee should be deprecated and submitted that, the appeal of the assessee be dismissed in the interest of justice. 8. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that, the Registry of the Tribunal has issued ‘defect notice’ dated 15.05.2025 calling the assessee to rectify the defects which are reproduced in the preceding paragraph no.5 hereinabove. However, the assessee did not rectify the said defects nor appeared on the date of hearing. From the above, it is noticed that, the assessee is a non-complaint at all stages of proceedings including the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) where the authorities below 6 ITA.No.727/Hyd./2025 have passed ex-parte order for non-prosecution. Further, the assessee, although, filed appeal before the Tribunal, but, the said appeal is ‘defective’ which is not in compliance with the Rule 8 of I.T. Rules, 1963 and, therefore, we have considered the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable and thus, the same is dismissed as ‘defective’. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as ‘defective’. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 16th July, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Jagadeshwari Mahendran, D.No.18-137, Rajaka Colony, PUTTUR – 517 583.Chittoor District. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Income Tax Department, TIRUPATI – 517 501.Chittoor District. 3. The Pr. CIT, Tirupati. 4. The DR, ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// "