MEENA KUMARI NELAVALA,NELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, GUDUR

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders

of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 27.11.2025, and pertain to Assessment

Years 2018-19 & 2019-20.

:: 2 :: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual didn’t

file her return of income (RoI) for AY 2018-19 on or before due date

provided u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act“). In

the case of the assessee, specific information was flagged as per Risk

Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT and as per the said

information, cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,12,02,750/- into State

Bank of India (SBI) A/c No.0000032439788813 was reported. Since the

assessee didn’t file RoI, the assessement has been reopened u/s.147 of

the Act and notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 was issued and

served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee didn’t

file RoI. Therefore, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 09.08.2024 &

04.10.2024 was issued, but no response from the assessee. Therefore,

the AO issued a final show cause notice on 28.10.2024 and called upon

the assessee ‘as to why’ addition should not be made towards cash

deposits. In the meantime, the AO also obtained information form the

bank in respect of details of cash deposits and in response to notice

u/s.133(6) of the Act, the bank has issued a letter dated 12.02.2024 and

stated that current account A/c No.0000032439788813 is in the name of

M/s. Priyanka Indane Gas Agencies. The AO after considering the

relevant information and also non-compliance of the assessee has passed

the best judgment assessement order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act on

20.02.2024 and determined total income of Rs.2,12,02,750/- by making

addition towards cash deposits u/s.69A of the Act.

:: 3 :: 3. Aggrieved by the assessement order, the assessee preferred an

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and such appeal was filed on 24.04.2024 with

a delay of ‘34’ days. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the

assessee in limine for delay in filing of appeal by holding that the

assessee has not explained the reasons for delay.

appeal before this Tribunal.

that the assessee has explained the delay of ‘34’ days in filing of appeal

before the Ld.CIT(A) with medical reasons, however, couldn’t file relevant

Medical Certificate before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the

assessee further referring to Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor

submitted that the assessee was suffering from severe low backache and

the Doctor advised her to take bed-rest from 18.02.2024 to 18.04.2024

and during this period, the assessement order of the AO couldn’t be

appealed before the Ld.CIT(A), which resulted in delay of ‘34’ days.

Further, the AO has made addition towards cash deposits into SBI current

A/c No.0000032439788813, but the above account was held in the name

of M/s. Priyanka Indane Gas Agencies, a partnership-firm where the

assessee was a partner. The entire cash deposits were considered in the

case of the partnership-firm. Although, this fact couldn’t explain to the

AO & the Ld.CIT(A), but the Ld.CIT(A) without providing sufficient :: 4 :: opportunity, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, he submitted that the delay

in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned and the

matter may be remanded to the file of the AO to re-consider the issue in

light of evidences filed by the assessee.

condonation of delay of ‘34’ days before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that

the assessee is not cooperating with the AO, which is evident from ex-

parte order passed by the AO. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee couldn’t

file relevant details to substantiate the reasons given for delay in filing of

appeal. Therefore, if give one more chance, it is a mere waste of time of

the Appellate Authority and therefore, there is no reason to condone the

delay and set aside the issue to the file of the AO. Thus, the appeal of

the assessee should be dismissed.

record and had gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly,

there is a delay of ‘34’ days in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The

assessee has explained the reasons with medical ground and argued that,

she was suffering from severe backache and the Doctor advised her to

take bed-rest from 18.02.2024 to 18.04.2024. The assessee has

furnished relevant Medical Certificate along with prescription to prove her

case and from the details submitted by the assessee, she was suffering

from backache, because of which, the assessee couldn’t file the appeal :: 5 :: within the due date as provided under the Act before the First Appellate

Authority. Therefore, in our considered view, reasons given by the

assessement comes under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay and

therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing of

appeal. Further, the issue involved in appeal is with respect to cash

deposits into bank account u/s.69A of the Act. The case of the Revenue

was that the assessee couldn’t explain the source for cash deposits into

SBI current A/c No.0000032439788813. It was the claim of the assessee

that the cash deposits considered by the AO into the bank account held at

SBI current A/c No.0000032439788813 was held in the name of M/s.

Priyanka Indane Gas Agencies, a partnership firm, where the assessee

was a partner and the entire cash deposits considered in the books of

accounts of the partnership firm. To support her case, the assessee has

filed a letter from bank along with bank account which clearly shows the

bank account considered by the AO in the hands of the assessee was held

in the partnership-firm. Since the assessee is having a prima facie case

on merit if the appeal is dismissed on technical reasons, a meritorious

case may be thrown out of judicial scrutiny as held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2

SCC 107. Therefore, in our considered view the delay in filing of appeal

before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned. Thus, we condoned the delay

of ‘34’ days in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, since the

assessement proceedings before the AO is ex parte, we set aside the :: 6 :: issue to the file of the AO for re-consideration. The AO is directed to re-

consider the issue in light of any evidences that may be filed by the

assessee to justify her case with reference to additions made by the AO

towards cash deposits into bank account held with SBI current A/c

No.0000032439788813.

for AY 2018-19 is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.153/Hyd/2026 for AY 2019-20:

and issues which we have already considered in the assessee’s own case

in ITA No.152/Hyd/2026. Once again, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

filed by the assessee for delay of ‘46’ days in filing of appeal. The

assessee has explained the reasons for delay and filed the relevant

medical records. Further, the addition made by the AO is also on the

issue of cash deposits into bank account and the claim of the assessee

was that the bank account held with SBI current A/c

No.0000032439788813 was held in the name of M/s. Priyanka Indane

Gas Agencies and the entire cash deposits was considered in the books of

accounts of the partnership-firm. A similar issue had been considered by

us for AY 2018-19. The reasons given by us, in preceding Para Nos.5-7

shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal as well. Therefore, for similar

reasons, we condoned the delay of ‘46’ days in filing of appeal before the :: 7 :: Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO is

directed to re-consider the issue of cash deposits into bank account held

with SBI current A/c No.0000032439788813 in light of any evidences that

may be filed by the assessee to justify her case.

for AY 2019-20 is allowed for statistical purposes.

153/Hyd/2026 for AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 are allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced on the 10th day of June, 2026, in Hyderabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (िवजय पाल राव) (मंजूनाथा. जी) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MANJUNATHA.G) उपा�� /VICE-PRESIDENT लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 10.06.2026. TLN

आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to: िनधा�रती/The 1 : Mrs.Meena Kumari Nelavala, Near Viswabharathi School, Amara Gardens, Assessee Naidupet, Nellore-524 126, Andhra Pradesh. राज�/ The Revenue 2 : The ITO, Ward-1, O/O ITO, Ward-1, Gudur-524 101, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT Hyderabad. 4 गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file 5

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

TUMMALACHARLA Digitally signed by 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: 2026.06.10 16:19:53 +05'30'

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad