DERAVATH JAGAN NAIK,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ 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. 2264/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Deravath Jagan Naik Vs. Income Tax Officer HYDERABAD Ward-15(1) PAN: APMPD7112D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Venkata Nagaraju राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri K Prasad, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 18/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Deravath Jagan Naik (“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 24.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

case of the assessee and, accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued. The assessee neither filed any return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act nor responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, on the basis of the information available on record, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under sections 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2022, making an additions of Rs. 2,07,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act and Rs.42,50,000/- under section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of about two years in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), not being satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay, declined to condone the same and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and in dismissing the appeal in limine. He submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person and is not acquainted with online proceedings and, therefore, could not come to know about the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessment order passed against him. It was submitted that as soon as the assessee came to know about the assessment order, he took steps for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)

and, therefore, there was no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to delay the filing of the appeal. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits. Inviting our attention to the assessment order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis that the assessee had deposited an amount of about Rs. 2.07 crores during the year under consideration, whereas, according to the assessee, the actual cash deposited in the bank account was only Rs. 42,50,000/-, which was from explainable sources. He, therefore, submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer, insofar as the amount of cash deposits is concerned, is factually incorrect. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has separately made an addition of Rs. 42,50,000/- on account of time deposits made by the assessee during the year under consideration, whereas the said time deposits were made out of the very same cash deposits of Rs. 42,50,000/-. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, there is a duplication of addition to the extent of Rs. 42,50,000/-. He, accordingly, prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 7. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the assessee had neither voluntarily filed the return of income nor filed any return in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee had also failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee were not sufficient to explain

the substantial delay of about two years in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

“3. CIT’s decision: The appellant raised as many as eight grounds. The grounds were not taken into consideration while adjudicating this appeal. On perusal of the reason(s) stated by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, the contention of the appellant is that he was not aware of the notices issued and having no knowledge about operating system. The submission of the appellant was perused and held that the reason(s) given by the appellant w.r.t. delay in filing of appeal, is not acceptable. Ignorance of the provisions of law including with respect to compliance within the due date, is not an excuse for noncompliance of the provisions of the law. In the case under consideration, the appeal shall be filed on or before 25.04.2022, the appeal was filed on 09.02.2024 with a huge delay of 2 years without any valid reason(s) for delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the contention of the appellant, is hereby rejected. Therefore, after considering the facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion “it is not a fit case for condonation of delay”. In view of this, the appeal is hereby rejected without admitting for adjudication. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant against order u/s. order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.03.2022 for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed for statistical purposes.” 9. On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay primarily on the basis of the reasons furnished by the assessee in Form No. 35 and, consequently, dismissed the appeal in limine without providing any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the contention of the assessee that he is an illiterate person and was not acquainted with the online proceedings, coupled with the substantial additions made in an ex parte assessment, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity ought to have been provided to the assessee to satisfactorily explain the delay before dismissing his appeal in limine. We also find that the assessee has raised certain factual contentions regarding the quantum of cash deposits considered by the Assessing Officer and the alleged duplication of addition in respect of the time deposits. At this stage, we do not express any opinion on the merits of these contentions. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to provide one effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal along with the necessary supporting evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the explanation and evidence furnished by the assessee and decide the issue of condonation of delay afresh in accordance with law. In case the Ld. CIT(A) is satisfied that sufficient cause existed for the delay and condones the same, he shall thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), and not seek unnecessary adjournments. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21st August, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Devarath Jagan Naik, H.No. 1-10-28 Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, ECIL Hyderabad 500061 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order KAMALA KUMAR Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.08.21 11:27:55 +05'30'