SNEHALATHA NEMARUGOMMULA,NALGONDA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SURYAPET

At the outset, there is a delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Vinod, Advocate, referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 18.11.2025, is deemed to have been received on the same day and the appeal against the said order was required to be filed on or before 31.01.2026. However, the appeal came to be filed on 11.02.2026, resulting in a delay of 11 days.

It was further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and, on account of the said fact, she does not regularly use her e-mail ID. Therefore, she could not notice the hearing notices issued by the learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) only in the first week of February, 2026, when she approached Shri Brahmadevara Somayya, Chartered Accountant, who had assisted her in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A).

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Ms. Mythili T., on the other hand, opposed the condonation petition filed by the assessee. She submitted that the assessee has failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period and, therefore, the delay may not be condoned. However, she fairly submitted that the issue may be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the facts and material available on record.

We have heard both the parties, perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bona fide and come under 'sufficient cause'. We further find that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji, reported in 167 ITR 471, has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and directed that a lenient approach should be followed to avoid dismissal of meritorious cases on technical grounds. Going by the principles laid down in MST Katiji (supra), and also considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is stated to be an agriculturist. The assessee did not file her return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21. Based on the information available with the Department that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,07,43,964/- in the bank accounts maintained with Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were

During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O., on verification of the information available on the Insight Portal, noticed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,07,43,964/- in the savings bank accounts maintained with Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. According to the A.O., since the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits with supporting evidences despite repeated

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order and, inter alia, contended that the A.O. erred in treating the cash deposits of Rs.1,07,43,964/- as unexplained money. The assessee further submitted that the actual cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained with Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank amounted to only Rs.37,15,732/- and, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. was factually incorrect. The assessee also challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act.

The learned CIT(A), after considering the facts available on record, observed that sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings. However, the assessee neither appeared before the learned CIT(A) nor furnished

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

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Vinod, Advocate, submitted that the authorities below were not justified in completing the assessment and disposing of the appeal without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not effectively participate in the assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings due to the reasons explained in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay. He submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and had no intention to avoid the proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has a proper explanation with regard to the issues involved in the assessment and is in a position to furnish the

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Ms. Mythili T., strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. She submitted that the A.O. had provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and even before the learned CIT(A), adequate opportunities were afforded. However, the assessee failed to avail the opportunities provided by the Department. She, however, fairly submitted that the issue may be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the facts and material available on record.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessment proceedings before the A.O. were completed ex parte. Accordingly, the A.O. made addition towards unexplained cash deposits by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.

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