MALLIKARJUNA RAO BRAHMARAUTHU,SANGA REDDY V. ITO., WARD-1, SANGA REDDY

ITA 705/HYD/2025

AI Insights

Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu, the appellant, did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) noticed substantial bank transactions, including significant cash deposits during the demonetisation period, which were not explained by the assessee despite multiple opportunities. The ITO treated these deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and completed the assessment ex-parte under section 144. The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed due to non-compliance, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed due to the assessee's continued non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775504 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITI GOYAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6)

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.705/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu, Sanga Reddy. PAN:AVPPB2671L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sanga Reddy. (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 Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu (“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 30.11.2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.705/Hyd/2025 2 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”). On the basis of information in his possession, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) noticed certain Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.705/Hyd/2025 3 bank transactions carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18.12.2017, requiring the assessee to file his return of income. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice. The Ld. AO obtained the bank statement of the assessee by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. On perusal, it was noticed that there was a total deposit of Rs.35,05,008/- in the bank account during the year, which included cash deposits of Rs.28,71,000/- during the demonetisation period (09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016). On 05.11.2019, the assessee appeared before the Ld. AO and explained that the cash deposits were sourced from rental income of his mother and her savings. However, when asked to substantiate this claim with documentary evidence, the assessee failed to produce any supporting proof and also did not produce his mother for examination, citing personal reasons. As the assessee neither filed a return of income nor furnished any documentary evidence to explain the deposits, the Ld. AO treated the entire deposits of Rs.35,05,008/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.705/Hyd/2025 4 vide order dated 06.11.2019 making the addition of Rs.35,05,008/- under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”). However, the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The case was fixed for hearing on 14.07.2025, 19.08.2025, and again today. However, on none of these dates did the assessee appear before the Tribunal, nor was any representative authorized to appear on his behalf. There is thus a consistent pattern of non-compliance before the Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A), and now before this Tribunal. We therefore proceed ex-parte and adjudicate the matter after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available 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 even before this Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.705/Hyd/2025 5 Tribunal, the assessee has remained 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 find that, the case was fixed for hearing on 14.07.2025, 19.08.2025, and again today. However, on none of these dates did the assessee appear before the Tribunal, nor was any representative authorized to appear on his behalf. There is thus a consistent pattern of non-compliance before the Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A), and now before this Tribunal. The assessee has shown complete disregard for the appellate proceedings. Despite several opportunities, the assessee has chosen not to appear or substantiate his case. In the absence of any submission, explanation, or supporting evidence produced by the assessee in support of his grounds of appeal, we are left with no option but to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.705/Hyd/2025 6 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 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 Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu, H.No. 4-7-23/10/1/G, ODF Colony Bypass Road, Sanga Reddy-502 001 2. The ITO Ward-1, Sanga Reddy. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "