RAMESH GUDALA,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO-WARD 1, MAHABUBNAGAR

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 441/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Ramesh Gudala Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahabubnagar Ward 1 PAN: AVVPG9408L Mahabubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Vishnu Teja L राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 02/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ramesh Gudala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 19.12.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is prejudicial and bad in law on the facts and in the circumstances. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) in disposing the appeal ex- part in view of the non-compliance of the appellant to the

notices issued electronically is prejudicial and bad in law. 3. The notice under section 148A issued by the Ld. A.O on 21.03.2023 for the A.Y 2016-17 is bad in law. 4. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. A.O holding the return invalid since it was filed beyond the time available under section 148 though before the assessment is completed is erroneous and beyond the provisions of the law. 5. Any other ground that may be urged with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT during the appellate proceedings”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2016-17. Based on the information available with the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”), it came to his notice that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹51,59,700/- during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Ld. AO initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act in the case of the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 21.03.2023 calling upon the assessee to furnish the return of income within 30 days. However, the assessee did not file the return of income within the time stipulated in the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and subsequently filed the return of income belatedly on 12.03.2024 declaring total income at Nil. During the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO obtained the bank statement of the assessee by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the concerned bank and found that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹35,35,920/- in his Andhra Bank account. The Ld. AO issued various notices calling upon the assessee to explain the source of the said cash

deposits. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Consequently, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2024 by treating the entire cash deposits of ₹35,35,920/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹35,35,920/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Under Ground No. 4 of the appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessment has been completed by the Ld. AO without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, however, he has considered the return of income filed by the assessee. It was submitted that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory where a return of income has been filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and have been considered by the Ld. AO. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the Ld. AO had issued

notice under section 148 of the Act on 21.03.2023 granting 30 days’ time to the assessee to file the return of income. However, the assessee failed to file the return within the time prescribed in the said notice and filed the return only on 12.03.2024. It was contended that since the return was filed beyond the time allowed under section 148 of the Act, the same was merely a belated return and therefore no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was required to be issued by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and the legal ground raised by the assessee deserves to be rejected. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO in the present case. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee filed the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 12.03.2024 and the same has been considered by the Ld. AO while computing the assessed income in the hands of the assessee. Although the return of income was filed beyond the time stipulated in the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the issue as to whether such return can be regarded as a valid return and whether issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory in such circumstances has already been examined by this Tribunal in detail in para nos. 17 to 27 of its order in the case of Sanghi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1311/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 07.01.2026, which is to the following effect:

assessee is allowed and the assessment order is hereby quashed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 15th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Ramesh Gudala H. No. 3-11 Peddapur, Chowderpally Village, Mahabubnagar 509360 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Income Tax Office, DEO Office Road, Mahabubnagar 509001 3 Pr. CIT Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.07.15 12:16:49 +05'30'