PADMAVATHI KADAKUDURU,NELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, NELLORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee did not file the return of income under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Based on the information available with the Department that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.21,05,000/- in her savings bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda during the relevant previous year, proceedings under section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were initiated and, thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act, was issued. Since the assessee failed to file the return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, and also did not comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessment was completed ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O., on verification of the Bank of Baroda account of the assessee, noticed that there were total credits of Rs.23,72,946/- during the financial year 2018-19. Since the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the said credits or furnish any supporting evidences despite sufficient opportunities, the A.O. treated the credits of 3 Rs.23,72,946/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment by determining the total income at Rs.23,72,946/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 281 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished by the assessee for condonation of delay, observed that although the assessee had attributed the delay to ill health and family distress, no supporting medical records or other evidences were furnished to substantiate the reasons. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ as barred by limitation, without adjudicating the issues on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri K. Satish Chandran, C.A. submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the assessee

The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessment order itself was passed ex parte and the assessee could not place the relevant facts and evidences before the A.O. He submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to explain her case before the lower authorities. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) may be condoned and 5 the matter may be restored for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The learned CIT-DR for the Revenue, Ms. Seema Meena, on the other hand, supported the order of the learned CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee had failed to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed period and had also failed to substantiate the reasons for the delay with satisfactory evidence. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. However, she fairly submitted that the issue may be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessment proceedings before the A.O. were completed ex parte. Further, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ on the ground that there was a delay of 281 days in filing the appeal and declined to condone the delay. Before us, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay and submitted that due to medical reasons,

Since the assessment proceedings before the A.O. were completed ex parte and the assessee did not get an effective opportunity of hearing before the learned CIT(A) on account of dismissal of the appeal in limine, in our considered view, one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee in the interest

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

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER TIRUPATI YAMINI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.07.27 10:39:29 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad