Appeal filed in relation to the addition of Rs.16,43,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 62/VIZ/2020
(Asst. Year :2017-18)

Pulugu Babu Rajendra
Prasad, D.No. 16-10-71,
Old Guntur, Guntur.
PAN No. ALTPP 1590 J
(Appellant) 

 Vs. 

Income Tax Officer
Ward-1(1), Guntur.
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, Advocate.
Department by : Shri N.Gopi Krishna, Sr.DR

Date of hearing : 21/04/2021.
Date of pronouncement : 29/04/2021.

O R D E R

PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10/12/2019 passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 [for short, “ld.CIT(A)”],Guntur u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.16,43,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) u/sec. 69A of the Act. The AO made the addition for non-response to the notices and the show-cause notice issued to the assessee.

3. Against which, the assessee went on appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that during the said period, the assessee was under tremendous pressure due to ill-health of his brother and his wife. He also stated that subsequently his brother was expired, therefore he could not appear before the AO for the assessment proceedings. The ld.CIT(A)dismissed the appeal of the assessee, since, the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to show that there was sufficient reason for non-response from the assessee during the period of March, 2018 to May, 2019, during the period of which the assessment proceedings were taken up by the AO.

4. Against the order of the ld.CIT(A) the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee also filed a petition for admission of additional evidence stating that tax matters were entrusted to one Sri Ramaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy, Tax Consultant and he was under the impression that Authorised Representative of the assessee was attending to the assessment proceedings. Further he stated that due to ill-health of his wife and his brother, the assessee could not monitor the case, therefore submitted that the assessee could neither respond to the notices nor furnished the additional evidence before the authorities below and hence, requested to admit the additional evidence and remand the matter back to the file of the AO to do the assessment afresh after on merits after considering the additional evidence.

To know more in details find the attachment file