NIRMALA REDDY YALALA,MALAKPET vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

There is a delay of 215 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed petition/affidavit for condonation of delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessee is a senior citizen of 80 years old and was suffering from various ailments including the weak eye site and other age-related health complications. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that due to weak eye site it was not possible for the assessee to read the documents or correspondence. Further the assessee is not conversant with the computer email therefore, the notice issued by the Department as well as the order passed by the learned CIT(A) were not in the knowledge of the assessee. The assessee was entirely depending upon her family members and therefore, in the absence of knowledge of the order, the assessee could not file appeal within the period of limitation. Thus, he has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the reasons as explained by the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further pointed out that the assessment order as well as the order of the learned CIT(A) have been passed ex-parte and thereby the Assessing Officer has assessed the entire deposits in the bank account under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 Act. He has also filed a petition for admission of additional evidence in the shape of agriculture land holding of the assessee to the extent of 10.21 acres. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no serious objection for condonation of delay. However, he has submitted that the assessee has shown gross negligence to produce any evidence in support of the source of the deposits made in the bank account. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee is changing the stand as nowhere the assessee has claimed source of deposit as agricultural income.

I have considered the rival submissions as well as contents of the petition for condonation of delay and affidavit filed by the assessee. The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced as under:

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

I have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as learned DR and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.13 lakhs on account of cash deposit in the bank account when the assessee failed to respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and to explain the source of deposit. The learned CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order when there was no response to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the additional evidence filed by the assessee, I am of the considered view that the matter requires proper verification and examination of the additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposit of Rs.13 lakhs. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the additional evidence filed by the assessee and by giving an appropriate opportunity of being heard.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.