SHALINI MACHA,KARIMNAGAR V. ITO., WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 887/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Shalini Macha, the appellant, who did not file her income tax return for the assessment year 2016-2017. The Income Tax Officer initiated scrutiny proceedings after noting unexplained investments in two immovable properties purchased by the assessee. The Assessing Officer added the amount of these investments as unexplained under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld this addition after the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate her claims during the appeals process. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the written submissions made by the assessee and thus remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717457 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURPREET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P VINOD
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.887/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Smt. Shalini Macha, JAGTIAL – 505 327. Karimnagar Dist. Telangana. PAN BRNPM3480P vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, KARIMNAGAR – 505 001. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Vinod, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.03.2025 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed her return of income for the assessment year 2016- Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.887/Hyd./2025 2017. Assessment proceedings have been taken-up for scrutiny for the reason that, from the financial year 2015- 2016 relevant to assessment year 2016-2017, the assessee has purchased two immovable properties for a sum of Rs.53,93,000/- [Rs.52,58,000/- + Rs.1,35,000/-], the source of which, remained unexplained. A show cause notice dated 11.01.2024 was issued and called-upon the assessee to explain the source. In response, the assessee submitted that, she has not made any cash transactions for purchase of properties and the sale deed has been executed between her and mother-in-law to avoid some legal complications, but, no actual consideration has been paid. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of purchase of two immovable properties for Rs.57,16,915 plus other charges made addition of Rs.57,16,915/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short \"the Act\"]. as unexplained investment. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the learned Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.887/Hyd./2025 CIT(A), the case was listed for hearing on six occasions from 05.04.2024 to 06.01.2025. On two occasion, the assessee had filed written submission without any concrete documentary evidences. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has issued a final show cause notice dated 06.01.2025, for which, there were no response from the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant details and also non-submission of details from the assessee, sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for purchase of properties. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Sri P. Vinod, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-submission of details, even though, the assessee has filed written submissions on the issue and explained the case. Since the learned CIT(A) has not considered the written submissions filed by the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.887/Hyd./2025 assessee, matter may be set aside to the file of learned CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that, the matter may be set aside to the file of learned CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of substantial justice. 6. Sri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, fairly agreed that, the matter may be set aside to the file of learned CIT(A) to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and considered the relevant reasons given by the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. We find that, although, the assessee has filed written submissions on the issue of addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for not filing of supporting evidences. Further, failed consider the written submissions filed by the assessee while disposing of the appeal. In our considered Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.887/Hyd./2025 view, the learned CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal, ought to have consider the written submissions of the assessee and decide the issue on the basis of written submissions. Since, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering relevant written submissions, in our considered view, the matter needs to be set-aside to the file of CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo consideration. The learned CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the issue, after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] [MANJUNATHA G] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 13th August, 2025 VBP Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.No.887/Hyd./2025 Copy to 1. Smt. Shalini Macha, 1-4-101/5/2, Aravind Nagar, JAGTIAL – 505 327. Karimnagar Dist. Telangana 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar. PIN – 505 001. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "