VIDYA MUKKOLLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.46/Hyd./2026 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Vidya Mukkolla, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500072. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. vs. PAN AZAPM2480R PIN – 500 084. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri S Gopi Krishna, CA For Revenue : Sri Mookambikeyan S, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 27.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.11.2025 of the learned CIT(A)--National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-2017.

2 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 1. “That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in passing the order without providing the opportunity of being heard requested by the appellant. 4. That the learned authorities erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the alleged addition is less than Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore the extended time limit prescribed under section 149 is not applicable. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, through the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), in complete violation of the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme introduced under section 151A read with section 148A of the Act. (295 Taxman 652 High Court of Telangana in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. Income- tax officer).

3 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the submissions made by the appellant before dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 8. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in appreciating the fact that the appellant received cash gift from her own sister which is exempt as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant made fixed deposits (FD's) out of the cash gifts received from her sister. 10. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition resulting in double taxation, inasmuch as the cash gift received by the appellant from her sister, being exempt under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the fixed deposits made out of the same funds have been taxed again, thereby taxing the same source twice, which is unsustainable in law.

Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

4 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 her income for the year under consideration was below the minimum taxable income. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a show cause notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.03.2023 and passed the re-assessment order whereby the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.37,61,078/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) but could not succeed as the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.

5 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee came to know about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer when the assessee contacted her Tax Consultant in tax related matters. Immediately, the assessee took steps and filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) however by that time there was a delay of 419 days which was explained but the learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has thus pleaded to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and then consider the appeal of the assessee.

6 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 negligence on the part of the assessee to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the period of limitation does not deserve condonation of delay.

“The appellant seeks the leave of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), to file the following application seeking condonation of delay.

7 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 in the Income-tax Portal are not belongs to me, and I only became aware of the completed assessment and consequential additions when contacted by a tax consultant for related matters. As soon as I came to know of the order and the substantial additions made therein, I immediately took steps to initiate the appeal process. 6. As the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and due to some unavoidable circumstances as explained above, we request the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7. We rely on the recent pronouncement of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch in the case of "Shri Ramakrishna Ramisetty Vs. Income-tax Officer" (ITA No.850/HYD/2024) in which Hon'ble ITAT condoned the delay of 3,392 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and decided case based on the merits.

It is prayed that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals), be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal on merits of equity, justice and good conscience.”

6.1. The learned CIT(A) has also reproduced the reasons explained by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal but the same were not found by the learned CIT(A) as satisfactory. As far as the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) the assessee has given the details that the assessee has filed

8 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 three replies to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) dated 22.07.2025 and 04.09.2025 however, the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits but dismissed the same in limine by giving the reasons in Para nos.7 to 7.1.3 as under:

“7. Decision: 7.1. At the first instance, it is noticed that the appellant had mentioned in its Form 35 Column No. 2(b) &(c), date of Order as 19.02.2024 and date of service as 19.02.2024, through e-mail and e-filing portal. 7.1.1. Therefore, the appeal should be filed on or before 20.03.2024, within the time permitted u/s. 249(2) of the Act. However, the appeal has been filed on 14.05.2025 ie. with a delay of 420 days for which the appellant has submitted a condonation request mentioning the reasons as under:

9 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 declared address for an extended period due to personal and unavoidable reasons.

I did not receive any effective communication or proper notice regarding the proceedings as Email and Mobile No available in the Income-tax Portal are not belongs to me, and I only became aware of the completed assessment and consequential additions when contacted by a tax consultant for related matters.

As soon as I came to know of the order and the substantial additions made therein, I immediately took steps to initiate the appeal process. 1. As the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and due to some unavoidable circumstances as explained above, we request the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. We rely on the recent pronouncement of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Branch in the case of "Shri Ramakrishna Ramisetty Vs. Income-tax Officer" (ITA No.850/HYD/2024) in which Hon'ble ITAT condoned the delay of 3,392 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and decided case based on the merits. It is prayed that the leamed Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal on merits of equity, justice and good conscience."

7.1.2. The appellant has filed an appeal with an inordinate delay of 420 days against the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for

10 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 Assessment Year 2018-19. The above-mentioned contentions of the appellant appear to be a mere scripted narrative, wherein it was claimed that the appellant was unaware about the e- proceedings. These discrepancies cast serious doubt on the genuineness and reliability stated in the reasons for delay, without any documentary proof to substantiate its claim in this matter.

After careful consideration of the facts, the reasons advanced by the appellant do not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act for condoning an extraordinary delay of over 17 months (420 days). The reasons are examined as follows:

The appeal has been filed after a delay of 420 days beyond the statutory limit prescribed in section 249(2). Such a prolonged delay requires strict and convincing justification. The appellant's plea of being "unaware of assessment proceedings" is general, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to condone such a significant delay. Mere unawareness, without credible evidence of genuine incapacity, cannot override statutory timelines.

Under the faceless assessment regime, as per section 144B(6) (ii), all notices/orders are considered validly served when delivered on: (a) the registered account of the assessee, or (b) the registered email address, or (c) the mobile app of the assessee.

11 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 Thus, the plea that email and mobile number "do not belong to the assessee" is untenable because these credentials form part of the self-declared registered profile on the income-tax portal. Updating and securing one's profile is the sole responsibility of the assessee. Any lapse in maintaining accurate contact details cannot invalidate statutory service. 1. Assessee Cannot Claim Benefit From Own Negligence: It is admitted that the assessee did not reside at the declared address and failed to update the address, email, or mobile number on the portal for an extended period. This constitutes negligence on the part of the assessee. The law is well-settled that an assessee cannot take advantage of his own failure to maintain updated particulars and thereafter claim non-receipt of notices as a ground for condonation. 1. No Evidence of Genuine Hardship or Exceptional Circumstances: The assessee has not produced any documentary evidence establishing that he was prevented by any unavoidable or extraordinary circumstances from checking statutory communications, monitoring email, accessing the portal, or updating personal details. There is no material showing incapacity, hospitalization, or any specific condition preventing timely action. The explanation lacks proximity, specificity, and evidentiary support. 1. Plea of "Came to Know Through Consultant" Not Acceptable: The claim that the assessee came to know of the assessment order only when a tax consultant contacted him indicates lack of due diligence and disregard of statutory responsibilities. Regular monitoring of tax compliance is not optional. The assessee remained passive for over a year despite an order passed under

12 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 section 147 r.w.s 144B-this itself shows absence of bona fide conduct. 1. Reliance on ITAT Hyderabad Order is Misplaced: The reliance on Shri Ramakrishna Ramisetty v. ITO (ITA No. 850/Hyd/2024) is factually and legally distinguishable. The Tribunal condoned an extraordinary delay of 3,392 days based on very specific and exceptional circumstances, supported by evidence, and in view of principles of substantial justice. In contrast, the present case involves no such compelling circumstances, no evidence of genuine hardship, and clear negligence on the part of the assessee. Precedents cannot be applied mechanically without matching facts and context. 1. No Sufficient Cause Made Out Under Section 249(3); Appeal Liable to Dismissal in Limine:

The statutory requirement of demonstrating "sufficient cause" for delay is not met. The explanation is vague, unsupported, and does not establish a reasonable cause for a delay of 420 days. Accordingly, the delay cannot be condoned, and the appeal is liable to be rejected in limine. The assessment order dated 19.02.2024 thus stands confirmed and attains finality.

7.1.3 Accordingly, the request for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.”

6.2. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the of the assessee on merits therefore, if the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is not condoned then, the assessee would be left remediless. Further prima facie, it appears that

13 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment has taken the transactions of cash deposits in the bank account of Rs.51 lakhs however, as it is apparent from the record as well as from the bank account statements of the assessee that the assessee deposited Rs.17 lakhs cash on 29.05.2015 and thereafter, an amount of Rs.19,30,237/- was transferred to the fixed deposit on the same date. The Assessing Officer has taken both these amounts as separate transactions of the deposit in the bank account. In any case, the time deposit taken by the Assessing Officer of Rs.38 lakhs is not a cash deposit in the bank account which is the reason for reopening of the assessment. Finally the Assessing Officer has again while passing the assessment order has made an addition of Rs.37,61,078/- comprising of cash deposit of Rs.17 lakhs and the term deposit of Rs.19 lakhs without even considering the bare fact that the time deposit of Rs.19 lakhs is out of the cash deposit of Rs.17 lakhs plus the opening balance of Rs.2,30,237/-. Therefore, if the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is not condoned then, it would amount to gross injustice because the Assessing Officer has

14 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 reopened the assessment by considering the incorrect facts and duplicate transactions. Further the assessment was also framed without even considering the correct facts of cash deposit in the bank account. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 419/420 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, accordingly the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits including all the grounds raised by the assessee. Our observations on the facts of the matter are prima facie and therefore, the learned CIT(A) requires to properly verify the correct facts while passing the fresh Order.

15 ITA.No.46/Hyd./2026 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MANJUNATHA G.] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 30th April, 2026. VBP Copy to : Vidya Mukkolla, H.No.1-2-22-86/7, G-1, Ganesh 1. Residency, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad – 500072. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Signature 2. Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.04.30 RAO 12:08:18 +05'30'