SAAGIRAJU KRISHNAMA RAJU MOHAN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

ITA 2315/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 September 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Firstly, regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the 150-day delay were sufficient and fell within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are meant to aid justice and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Therefore, the delay was condoned. Secondly, concerning the addition of Rs. 9,99,000/- under section 69A, the Tribunal considered the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee, including the sale deed of the father's property and the gift deed between the assessee and his father. The Tribunal noted that all events occurred in close proximity in time and found merit in the assessee's contention that the cash deposit was duly substantiated as a gift. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 9,99,000/- made under section 69A was deleted. The ratio decidendi is that when a taxpayer provides documentary evidence like sale deeds and gift deeds, and the transactions are proximate in time, the source of cash deposits can be considered explained, even if initially there was a failure to furnish evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Saagiraju Krishnamna Raju Mohan Kumar, filed an appeal against the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was delayed by 150 days. The assessee explained the delay as arising from a misunderstanding with his accountant and counsel regarding the filing of the appeal after realizing penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal condoned the delay. The core issue involved an addition of Rs. 9,99,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of cash deposited in the assessee's bank account. The assessee, an employee, had not initially filed a return but did so after proceedings under section 147 were initiated. He explained the cash deposit as a gift from his parents but failed to provide documentary evidence initially.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 9,99,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account, treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, is justified? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: For Issue 1: The delay was not deliberate or intentional but occurred due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, specifically issues with his accountant and counsel regarding the filing of the appeal. The reasons provided fall within the parameters for condonation laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. For Issue 2: The cash deposit of Rs. 9,99,000/- was received as a gift from his father. The father had sold an immovable property for Rs. 18 lakh and transferred Rs. 10 lakh to the assessee as a gift. The assessee relied on the sale deed and a gift deed to substantiate his claim. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Department Representative relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 24.10.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

ITA 2315/BANG/2026 SAAGIRA

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →