ITA No.254/Hyd/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Guruswamy Naidu Yerraguntla, was aggrieved by the order dated 30/03/2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where three additions were made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the order dated 17/01/2024 passed by the learned CIT(A). The grievance of the Revenue was that the CIT(A) unilaterally deleted all the additions without putting the Assessing Officer on notice and receiving his comments. The AR conceded that the impugned order did not show that the documents were forwarded to the Assessing Officer nor his comments were received after due verification.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) should have put the Assessing Officer on notice of the material produced by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings?
• 2. Whether the principles of natural justice are violated?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Anirudh Bhimjibhai Dudhat Vs Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• ITO Vs. Tribhawan, Kumar Parnami

  Delhi Bench ‘G’ New Delhi benchAY 2009-10Dismissed

• Shri Manjunatha Venkata Subrahmanya Dudyala vs. Asstt. C. I. T.

  Hyderabad bench

• Sangeeta Sharma vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• V Mart Retails Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Mohd Waseeque Vs. The A.C.I.T

  Delhi ‘E’ Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed