RAMA REDDY DHASHARATHA,NERALUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 4(3)(3), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

MA 40/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rama Reddy Dhasharatha, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, contesting the Tribunal's earlier decision to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that all necessary documents supporting his agricultural income were previously submitted and should have been considered by the Tribunal. However, the Departmental Representative opposed this, citing that the lower authorities had not fully verified these documents. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's stance, emphasizing that it could not undertake verification of documents for the first time in appellate proceedings and thus dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791626 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GHALE; STANDING COUNSEL DEPT
• Assessee Lawyers: LIKITH PATEL

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A No.40/Bang/2025 [In ITA No.1385/Bang/2024] Assessment Years : 2017-18 Rama Reddy Dhasharatha, Neralur Post, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 107. PAN – AEDPD 5930 M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 4(3)(3), Bengaluru. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Likith Patel, AR Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept, Date of hearing : 28.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Act. The assessee states that all documents supporting the agricultural income were already filed before the Assessing Officer and also before the ld. CIT(A). It is also stated that the same documents were again produced before the Tribunal. The assessee therefore submits that the Tribunal should have considered these documents on merits, instead of sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.40/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 . 2. The learned AR argues that the Tribunal wrongly assumed that the documents were filed for the first time before the Tribunal. According to the learned AR, the Tribunal should modify its earlier order and decide the issue itself after considering all documents already available on record. 3. The learned DR strongly opposes the request. The ld. DR submits that the lower authorities have already recorded that the assessee did not file complete supporting documents before them. This fact is evident from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities. It is a fact that the necessary documents were not verified by the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A). This is also clearly evident from their orders. When the lower authorities have not carried out verification, the Tribunal cannot undertake such verification for the first time in appellate proceedings. 4.1 Therefore, we find no mistake or infirmity in the earlier order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had rightly restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper examination of the documents. We also find no error in the order of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the prayer of the assessee for modification of the order is therefore rejected. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.40/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 . 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in court on 8th day of December, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 8th December, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "