SHAIK MAQBOOL BASHA,HINDUPUR vs. ITO., WARD-1, HINDUPUR

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. 1510/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Shaik Maqbool Basha Vs. Income Tax Officer Hindupur Ward-1 PAN:ASNPM2221N Hindupur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Smt. M Narmada, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 30/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/05/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Shaik Maqbool Basha (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16.07.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) under section 250A of the Act, dated 16.07.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not dismissing the appeal, without condoning the delay on the simple reason of failure to establish the genuineness of delay, thus denying justice to the innocent assessee who is ignorant of law. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not admitting the appeal without judicially as fairly considering the reasons shown by assessee/appellant for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have admitted the appeal and ought to have heard the appeal on the basis of merits rather than dismissing the appeal by holding that the assessee has not filed petition for condonation of delay. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not admitting the appeal which amounts to denial of justice to the appellant. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the submissions made by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has a valid reason for not filing the appeal in time and the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have judiciously appreciated the legal jurisprudence that condoning the delay will not prejudice the Revenue, as the delay was not intentional and no unfair advantage is gained by the assessee on account of delay. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the appeal on the fact that notice issued under section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hindupur is invalid and bad in law as he has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act for the A.Y 2019-20 as per the provisions of section 151A of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that according to the CBIT’s circular dated 6.9.2021 & 29.03.2022 all the assessment orders and notices under section 148 thereon passed on or after 1.4.2021 shall be passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center, whereas in the assessee’s case, the notice under section 148 was issued by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hindupur. 10. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that, the Ld. A.O has grossly erred in making additions of

Rs.84,33,29,761/- under section 69 and Rs.2,63,098/- under section 69A of the Act, without properly examining fairly the facts of the case. 11. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact, the Ld. A.O erred in not appreciating the amount of Rs.2,63,098/- is already included in the cash withdrawal, the addition on this count will lead double taxation which is against the principle of law. 12. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the Ld. A.O erred in making addition of Rs.84,33,29,761/- without making any enquiry with the bank authorities and without any application of mind but merely on the basis of information available in the RMS Portal. 13. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the Ld. A.O made an addition of Rs.83,61,91,663/- towards cash withdrawals made in the State Bank of India without any proper application of mind. 14. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered that the Ld. A.O erroneously made addition of Rs.71,38,098/- towards cash withdrawals made in Canara Bank (current account) without considering the fact that there is the equal amount of credits in the bank account. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the Ld. A.O erred in not considering that the total debits in the State Bank of India as an equal amount of credits in the year under consideration. 16. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to consider the Ld. A.O erred by not properly considering the fact that there are inter bank transfer between SBI, Canara Bank and Bank of Baroda and addition of the same leads to double taxation which is against the principle of law. 17. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the Ld. A.O failed consider that the prior approval obtained from the specific authority as per the provisions of section 149 and 151 of the Act are not in accordance with the said provisions and as such it is clear that the Income Tax Officer has not obtained prior approval of the specified authority before issuing the notice under section 1489 of the Act and thus the notice under section 148 deserved to be quashed. 18. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the Ld. A.O erred in considering the legal position that when notice under section 148 of invalid and without jurisdiction, the further proceedings in completing the assessment under

section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B on 19.02.2024 are bad in law. 19. Appellant may add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal”.

was neither intentional nor deliberate. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO has made a high-pitched and erroneous addition under section 69 of the Act by treating cash withdrawals from the assessee’s bank account maintained with State Bank of India amounting to Rs.84,33,49,761/- as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. Inviting our attention to the bank statement placed at page no. 130 of the paper book, the Ld. AR submitted that the total credits in the said bank account during the year under consideration were only Rs.2,02,33,938/-, which is substantially different from the figure considered by the Ld. AO. Therefore, it was submitted that the addition made is factually incorrect and highly excessive. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be condoned and the matter may be restored either to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) or the Ld. AO for adjudication on merits. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the Ld. AO had duly issued notices as well as the assessment order to the email ID which was subsequently provided by the assessee himself in Form No. 35. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that he was not aware of the notices or the assessment proceedings is not acceptable. The Ld. DR further submitted that there was no reasonable cause for such a substantial delay of 232 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal may be upheld. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the

condonation petition along with the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that the explanation of the assessee is that he was not well-versed with the online proceedings and, therefore, could not come to know about the notices issued by the Ld. AO as well as the assessment order passed. It is further explained that the assessee came to know about the assessment proceedings only when recovery proceedings were initiated and the banker informed the assessee regarding the tax recovery notice dated 08.10.2024, after which immediate steps were taken to file the appeal. We have also considered the contention of the Ld. DR that the notices were sent to the email ID provided by the assessee. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the assessee and the explanation supported by affidavit, we are of the considered view that the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to a reasonable cause and not due to any deliberate or mala fide intention. Further, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR that the assessment made by the Ld. AO appears to be a high- pitched assessment. We have gone through the bank statement of the State Bank of India placed at page no. 130 of the paper book, and on perusal of the same, we find that the total credits in the bank account during the year under consideration are Rs.2,02,33,938/-, which materially differs from the amount of Rs.84,33,29,761/- considered by the Ld. AO as cash withdrawals and brought to tax under section 69 of the Act. This prima facie indicates that the addition made by the Ld. AO requires proper verification and adjudication. In view of the said facts, and in the

interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication of the issue on merits, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all necessary details as may be required by the Ld. AO. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 6th May, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Shaik Maqbool Basha, 3-2-200 Mukaddipet, Hindupur 515201 A.P 2 Income Tax Officer Ward -1 Office of the ITO Hindupur 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order

TIRUPATI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.05.07 14:29:22 MALLESWARI +05'30'