VENKATESHWAR SANDHYA RAO MEKALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ�, हैदराबाद INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD “A-SMC”-BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 1019/HYD/2025 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2014-2015 VENKATESHWAR SANDHYA RAO MEKALA ITO, WARD-13(3) FLAT NO. 204, A.L.M. Aayakar Bhavan, RESIDENCY, PRAKASH Basheerbagh, Vs. NAGAR, BEGUMPET,, HYDERABAD-500004. HYDERABAD-500 016, TELANGANA TELANGANA (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��यथ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number of AJCPM6248H Assessee: �नधा�रती �वारा/Assessee Shri Pavan Kumar Chakrapani, CA represented by: राज� व �वारा/Revenue MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR represented by:

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 03.06.2026 घोषणा क� तार�ख / Date of pronouncement: 10.06.2026

2 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 10.05.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-2015.

3 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 taxable income. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of credit card payment without considering the source of payment from the income of the husband as well as other family members of the assessee including the amount received from chit fund is highly arbitrary and unjustified. The assessee challenged the Order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that the assessee did not receive the impugned order and therefore, the assessee was not having the knowledge of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). The assessee is a 58 year old lady and is not conversant with the computer and email. Only when the Tax Consultant of the assessee verified from the ITBA Portal, it was found that the learned CIT(A) has already dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide Order dated 10.01.2024. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that due to lack of knowledge of the impugned order, the assessee could not take the steps for filing the

4 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 appeal within the period of limitation. He has pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution as the Tax Consultant who filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has not responded to the notice issued by the learned CIT(A). Thus, he has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor wilful but due to the circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has pleaded that the delay of 315 days in filing the appeal may be condoned by taking a lenient view. He relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) as well as in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others [1979] 118 ITR 507 (SC).

5 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the conduct of the assessee does not deserve a lenient view for the condonation of delay.

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963: The Appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows- 1. The Appellant is an Individual and she was Government Employee during the relevant assessment year 2014-2015, the Department had issued notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as Act), dated 31/03/2021. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the Appellant. 2. The learned Assessing Officer completed assessment and passed the order of assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act, dated 09/03/2022, raising a demand of an amount being Rs. 10,96,404/-. Aggrieved by the order of assessment passed, the Appellant had preferred an appeal before the Honorable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC. 3. Eventually the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, the appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 10/05/2024, which would have received by the counsel of the Appellant, who had filed the appeal. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant is 58 years old, and is not conversant with the computer and mails.

6 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 4. On 03/02/2025, the Appellant was made aware through the Department authorities that the appeal preferred by the Appellant is dismissed and the amount which is due has to be paid immediately. 5. After receipt of the information the Appellant contacted the counsel, who on verification of the account of the Appellant in Income Tax Portal, found that the appeal preferred by the Appellant was dismissed vide order dated 10/05/2024, and the order was sent on the email address mentioned on form no. 35 (i.e.) mvsandhya99@gmail.com. 6. The Appellant was not aware about the appeal being dismissed, nor the Appellant was informed by counsel who had filed the appeal on behalf of the Appellant. It is also pertinent to note that, the counsel who had filed the appeal had not appeared, and the appeal got dismissed for non-prosecution of appeal. 7. The present counsel advised the Appellant to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Honorbale Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi, along with the condonation petition, before the Honorbale Tribunal. 8. Soon after obtaining the professional advice from the present counsel the Appellant within a reasonable time has filed this present appeal before this Honorable Tribunal. 9. It is submitted that due to the above mentioned reasons the Appellant could not file the Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal well in time i.e. on or before 31/07/2024 and by the time the Appellant sought the present counsel's advice, there arose 315 days delay in filing the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 10. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal takes a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 315 days in

7 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 filing the Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice. 11. It is submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal is not allowed, the Appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or injury would be caused to the Respondent if this application of Condonation of delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Place: Hyderabad Sd/- MV Sandhya Rao Appellant.” Date: 09/06/2025

4.1. Thus the assessee has explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal as the assessee was not aware and was not having the knowledge of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Further, the Counsel who filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) has not attended the proceedings which has resulted the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. We further note that even the Assessing Officer has also passed the ex-parte order and made the addition of the entire amount of credit card payments apart from salary income of Rs.5,83,741/-. Thus, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not given the credit of the salary income which is

8 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 assessed to tax. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we take a lenient view for condoning the delay of 315 days in filing the appeal subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this Order.

9 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 5. Whether the learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is justified in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.16,25,615/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making of addition of an amount being Rs.11,41,874/-as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, under the facts and circumstance of case. 8. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in the addition of Rs.11,41,874/-, as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, only on the basis of credit card bills payments, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.”

10 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer has assessed the income of the assessee by taking the entire payment towards credit cared as well as salary income of the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by giving the credit of 50% of the taxable salary amounting to Rs.2,41,871/-. The assessee has explained the source of the payment of credit card as the income of the assessee along with the income of her husband and other family members as the credit card was used for the common purpose of the family members of the assessee. Since the appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT(A) and addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld to the extent of Rs.9 lakhs therefore, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue after considering the explanation, relevant details and supporting evidence to be filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer is directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the

11 ITA.No.1019/Hyd./2025 assessee before passing the fresh Order. We Order accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANJUNATHA G. VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 10th June, 2026 VBP Copy to: VENKATESHWAR SANDHYA RAO MEKALA, FLAT NO. 1 204, A.L.M. RESIDENCY, PRAKASH NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-500016, TELANGANA 2 ITO., WARD-13(3), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD - 500004, TELANGANA 3 THE Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, SMC-A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.06.10 I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD RAO 12:24:49 +05'30'