RAMA NAIDU GUTHA,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO, WARD -1, ANANTAPUR

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 MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.No.1919/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Rama Naidu Gutha, The Income Tax Officer, vs. ANANTAPUR – 515 001. Ward-1, PAN AGCPG1853B ANANTAPUR – 515001. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by : Sri Vinod K Suthar, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by : MS Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04.05.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.05.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 19.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2023-2024.

2 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 1. “The order of appeal passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dt.19.09.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, without admitting the appeal for adjudication on the reason of belated filing. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 140 days in filing the appeal before him, without appreciating that the appellant has reasonable and sufficient cause for such delay in filing of the appeal. 3a) The LdCIT(A) has grossly erred by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the reason of certain circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and the CIT(A) ought to have extended the principles of natural justice. 3b) The LdCIT(A) ought to have taken a favourable interpretation of the benevolent provisions of section 249(3) of Act and ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicated the grounds on merit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the basis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the control of the appellant. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on the technical reason of delay in filing, which amounts to denial of justice to the appellant on the technical and curable delay in seeking justice. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without giving proper reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is incorrect and bad in law.

3 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Ld. AO passed assessment order without giving proper reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is incorrect and bad in law. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that, the Ld. AO inadvertently has made addition as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.19,51,223/- without considering the facts made by the assessee. 8A) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to appreciate the fact that the business receipts amounting to Rs.18,96,500/- including net profit amounting to Rs.7,92,500/- which was offered to tax u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act. 9 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O amounting to Rs.2,84,065/- by disallowing the claim of deduction under chapter VI A. 10. 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.”

4 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 in limine without adjudication on merits. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the reasons explained by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal were beyond the control of the assessee as notices as well as the assessment order were sent by the Assessing Officer/Department to the email-ID of the Tax Consultant of the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not aware about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer due to non-communication of the same. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that except for the assessment years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 the email- ID of the assessee was given in the return of income however, for these two assessment years the Tax Consultant has given his own email-ID and therefore, there was a communication gap regarding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer which has resulted the delay in filing the appeal. Thus the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that due to inappropriate guidance and assistance on the part of the Tax Consultant the assessee could not take

5 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 the steps in time for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). He has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) be condoned.

6 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 elaborately however, due to lack of communication and knowledge of the assessment order, the assessee could not file the appeal as apparent from the reasons explained by the assessee. We further note that in the return of income the email-ID of the Tax Consultant of the assessee was given and therefore, the notice as well as the assessment order appears to be sent to the email-ID of the Tax Consultant of the assessee. Though the email-ID in the return of income was given by the assessee or on behalf of the assessee therefore, the Department cannot be blamed for non-communication of the assessment order to the assessee however, since the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of payment made towards credit card of Rs.19,51,223/-. It appears that all the payments were recorded in Form-61 uploaded by the HDFC bank and assessee has filed the return of income under presumptive tax provisions of sec.44AD of the Act. However, in the absence of explanation for source of the said payment of credit card, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance of the said amount of Rs.19,51,223/-. Further the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim of

7 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 the assessee under Chapter-VIA of Rs.2,84,065/- for want of documentary evidence. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Hence, if the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is not condoned, then the assessee w3ould be remediless. Now the assessee has already filed the additional evidence along with an application under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 to explain the source of payment of credit card as well as documentary proof to support the claim made under Chapter-VIA of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are taking a lenient view to condone the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

5.1. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits and the same was dismissed in limine therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and examination of

8 ITA.No.1919/Hyd./2025 the additional evidence filed by the assessee in respect of payment of credit card as well as the deduction claimed under Chapter-VIA of the Act. Needless to say, assessee be given an appropriate of hearing before passing the fresh Order.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 06th May, 2026 VBP Copy to: Rama Naidu Gutha, Near Sangameswara 1. Function Hall, Bangalore Road, ANANTAPUR. PIN – 515 001. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ANANTAPUR. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT, KURNOOL. 4. The DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.05.06 RAO 14:28:23 +05'30'