JOGINDRA KOTAPALLI,RAJAHMUNDRY V. ITO., WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

ITA 688/HYD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves Shri Jogindra Kotapalli, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had dismissed his earlier appeal. The primary contention arose from the additions made by the Ld. AO under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the assessee's failure to file a return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. The Ld. AO had noted significant financial activities including cash deposits and investments, leading to an assessment of undisclosed income. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the lack of compliance from the assessee at various stages, decided to partly allow the appeal, providing some relief by directing specific verifications and adjustments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775503 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITI GOYAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Salary income
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SM’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न् याययक सदस् य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस् य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Jogindra Kotapalli, Rajahmundry. PAN:ALNPK2330F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Jogindra Kotapalli (“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 21.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 2 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who did not file any return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Based on information available under the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) found that during the year under consideration the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 4 assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.41,49,000/-, fixed deposit of Rs.12,00,000/-, purchase of equity shares of Rs.82,666/-, sale of equity shares of Rs.94,984/-, and earned salary income of Rs.1,03,982/-. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 19.03.2022. As there was no response from the assessee, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO on 07.04.2022. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 28.06.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,98,610/-. The return filed was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2023. The assessee filed his submissions on 13.10.2023. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 31.10.2023 was issued by Ld. AO requiring the assessee to respond by 08.11.2023. However, no compliance was made by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 18.12.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs.24,49,000/- under section 69A of the Act Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 5 and Rs.14,703/- on account of interest income, determining the total income at Rs.26,62,310/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee did not comply with the notices of Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. This appeal was fixed before us on 09.07.2025 and 18.08.2025, when the assessee filed adjournment petitions. However, on those days, no representation was there on behalf of the assessee. Further, on the present date of hearing, neither any adjournment petition has been filed nor any representative has appeared. We therefore proceed ex-parte and adjudicate the matter after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material on record. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that at all three stages i.e. before the Ld. AO, before the Ld. CIT(A), and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 6 even before this Tribunal, the assessee has remained mostly non-compliant. The assessee has not produced any explanation or supporting material regarding the additions made. The orders of the Revenue authorities, therefore, deserve to be upheld. 7. We have heard the contentions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has not produced any explanation, submission, or evidence in support of his grounds of appeal, either before the lower authorities or before this Tribunal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we have examined the records available before us. We find that, under ground no. 3 of the appeal, the assessee has explained that interest income of Rs.8,709/- was earned on a savings account. In this regard, we direct the Ld. AO to verify the assessee’s claim and allow deduction, if eligible, under Chapter VI-A of the Act. 8. Under the same ground no.3 of the appeal, the assessee has further submitted that deposits of Rs.3,00,000/- was merely Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 7 internal transfers from one bank account to another (from Tirupati branch to Rajahmundry branch). In this regard, the Ld. AO is directed to verify the same from the bank statements and decide the issue as per law. 9. Further, under the same ground no.3 of the appeal, with regard to the remaining cash deposits, the assessee claimed that these were out of his past savings during 30 years of service in the Railways. However, no working or supporting evidence has been furnished to show how such savings were accumulated, why they were kept in cash, and why they were deposited in tranches during the year. A bare statement of past savings cannot be accepted as explanation. At the same time, it also cannot be denied that a person with long service in Railways could have had some savings. Taking a liberal approach and to balance equities, we direct the Ld. AO to delete an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the cash deposits, treating the same as explained. The balance addition is confirmed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.688/Hyd/2025 8 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th Sept., 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 10.09.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Jogindra Kotapalli, 86-6-18/2, Manthena Gardens, Near Tilak Road, Rajahmundry-533 101 2. The ITO, Ward 1(1), Tirupati. 3. Pr.CIT, Tirupati. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "