NAGESWARA RAO POKALA,WEST GODAVARI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM

ITA 461/VIZ/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nageswara Rao Pokala, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 despite having significant financial transactions. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and treated a substantial portion of the assessee's income as unexplained money under section 69A and other sources. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-submission of required documents and evidence. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the issues on merits and restored the case for re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 889506 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2026
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापत्तनम पीठ, विशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH: DIVN श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एिं श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 461/VIZ/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) NAGESWARA RAO POKALA 6-17, ANANTHAPALLI POST, RICE MILL, MAIN ROAD, NALLAJERLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST.- 534111, ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AYAKAR BHAVAN, 2-1- 56/1 OPP. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KN ROAD TADEPALLIGUDEM- 534101, ANDHRA PRADESH अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: CUKPP4235N अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: CA I Kama Sastry (HYBRID) प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Smt. Payal Gupta, Sr AR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 31-Aug-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 02-Sept-2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 30.06.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. As per the information available with the Department, the assessee had entered into financial transactions aggregating to Rs.1,89,75,454/- during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued on 23.03.2023. In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed his return of income on 21.04.2023. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted his response on 09.11.2023 and explained the nature and sources of the transactions appearing in his bank accounts. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 3. The A.O., after considering the submissions of the assessee and the material available on record, observed that, the assessee had claimed turnover of Rs.41,54,995/- from wholesale paddy trading, Rs.28,00,000/- as personal savings and Rs.7,59,999/- as an amount received from his son. However, the assessee had failed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the wholesale paddy trading activity and the sources of the personal savings and amount received from his son. The A.O. further observed that, the assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/- but had not furnished supporting documents such as records of agricultural land, bills, vouchers, details of expenditure and evidence regarding sale of agricultural produce. Accordingly, the A.O. treated Rs.77,14,994/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.3,31,686/- as income from other sources and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,46,680/- for the assessment year 2016-17. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and income Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 from other sources. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee on several occasions. The assessee sought adjournments on various dates, but did not file any written submissions or documentary evidences in support of the grounds of appeal. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessee had not availed the opportunities provided during the appellate proceedings and had not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his claims. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the additions made by the A.O. towards Rs.41,54,995/-, Rs.28,00,000/- and Rs.7,59,999/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.1,00,000/- towards agricultural income treated as income from other sources, were sustainable. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the A.O. and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri I. Kama Sastry, C.A., submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an effective opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed an adjournment application before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same was not accepted and the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal. He further submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and, therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. 8. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Smt. Payal Gupta, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). She submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued notices to the assessee on several occasions and the assessee had sought adjournments without furnishing the necessary details and documentary evidences. She further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material available on record, adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee and confirmed the additions made by the A.O. Accordingly, she submitted that no further Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 opportunity was required to be granted to the assessee. However, she fairly submitted that the matter may be decided in accordance with law. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order and raised specific grounds challenging the additions made by the A.O. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee on several occasions. The assessee sought adjournments in response to the notices. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the adjournment application filed by the assessee and disposed of the appeal ex parte. We further find that, while disposing of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the issues raised by the assessee in the light of the grounds of appeal and the facts of the case. 10. Since the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the adjournment application filed by the assessee and disposed of the appeal ex parte without considering the issues on merits, in our considered view, to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the matter needs to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issues raised by the assessee in the present appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the same afresh on merits, after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. The assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish the necessary details and evidences in support of his case. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 2nd September, 2026. Sd/- (श्री रिीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated 02.09.2026. TYNM/sps Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.461/Viz/2025 आदेशकी प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तनर्ााररती/The Assessee : NAGESWARA RAO POKALA, 6-17, ANANTHAPALLI POST, RICE MILL, MAIN ROAD, NALLAJERLA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIST.-534111, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : INCOME TAX OFFICER, AYAKAR BHAVAN, 2-1-56/1 OPP. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KN ROAD, TADEPALLIGUDEM-534101, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. तवभागीयप्रतततनतर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, तवशाखाित्तनम / DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. गार्ाफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Senior Private Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad. Printed from counselvise.com TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.09.07 11:37:02 +05'30' "