Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a return for AY 2015-16. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 after noticing cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The AO made an addition of Rs. 26,31,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 231-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach, considering the assessee's lack of conversance with tax laws. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the reassessment proceedings and additions made under Section 69A should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 144B, 69A, 148A, 149, 139, 115BBE, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad SMC Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Dandeboina Ramesh (“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 25/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16.
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of learned CITA is erroneous and bad in law.
The learned CIT A ought to have condoned the delay in filing appeal before him and considered the appeal on merits.
3. The learned CIT A failed to appreciate that the impugned asst order has been done arbitrarily, Indiscreetly, making huge and high-pitched additions.
The learned CITA ought to have appreciated the facts before him and given an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case on merits and further failed to appreciate that the assessee has clear and clinching explanation and sources to explain the deposits of 26,31,000/- made in the bank account.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, order U/s. 147 r.w.s144, read with section 1448 of the Income-tax Act, is invalid, erroneous and bad in law.
The assessment order is void ab initio since the assessee has not received notice U/s. 148A nor reopening proceedings and issue of Notice u/s.148 were done under faceless procedure.
7. The assessment reopened after 3 years is barred by limitation U/s. 149, since the escaped Income is less than Rs.50 lacs, the learned assessing officer assumed extra jurisdictional powers under the extended period of 10 years, based on duplication of information by considering the same deposit twice.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 26,31,000/- as unexplained money U/s.69A of I.T. Act, 1961.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in charging tax U/s.11588E of the I.T. Act, levying interest of Rs. 15,20,123/- and further erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/ss. 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Any other ground or grounds your appellant may urge at the time of hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the year under consideration. Based on the information available with the Department, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.51,62,000/- during the year under consideration in his bank account maintained with the State Bank of Hyderabad. Accordingly, a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 23.03.2022 was Page 2 of Dandeboina Ramesh vs. ITO issued by the Ld. AO to the assessee calling upon him to explain the source of the said cash deposits. However, the assessee did not comply with the said notice. Consequently, the Ld. AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 07.04.2022 and issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05.01.2023 declaring total income of Rs.2,07,420/-. However, thereafter the assessee did not comply with the subsequent notices issued by the Ld. AO during the course of reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. AO called for the bank statement of the assessee from the concerned bank and on verification of the same found that the actual cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the year under consideration was Rs.26,31,000/-. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the said cash deposits of Rs.26,31,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act vide order dated 04.12.2023, making addition of Rs.26,31,000/- under section 69A of the Act and determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.28,38,420/-.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues on merits.
Page 3 of Dandeboina Ramesh vs. ITO 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is an RTC employee working as a Junior Assistant. During the relevant year, the assessee did not have any taxable income and had never filed any return of income earlier. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not conversant with the provisions of tax laws and was not aware of the remedial actions available under the Act. The assessee was also not aware of the consultants dealing with appellate matters and therefore, while searching for a suitable consultant, there was a delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and occurred due to bona fide reasons. In support of the said contention, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao & Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others dated 27/02/2002 (AIR 2002 SC 1201) and submitted that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act and therefore the issue has not been properly adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. AO for adjudication on merits after providing proper opportunity to the assessee.
Page 4 of Dandeboina Ramesh vs. ITO 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the assessee failed to show any reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. The Ld. DR further relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz., (i) Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors, Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006, dated 08/07/2010; (ii) Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018, dated 08/04/2024; (iii) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through his LR, Civil Appeal of 2024 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.21096 of 2019, dated 03/04/2024; and (iv) Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr Vs. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9580/2025, dated 15/04/2025 and submitted that unless sufficient cause is shown for the delay, the same should not be condoned. Accordingly, the Ld. DR contended that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied on. The first issue for our consideration is whether the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. In this regard, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is an RTC employee working as a Junior Assistant and was not conversant with the tax laws and therefore could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. It was further submitted that while searching for a suitable Page 5 of Dandeboina Ramesh vs. ITO consultant to pursue the appellate remedy, there was delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the record, we find that the delay in filing the appeal does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. The case laws relied upon by the Revenue are distinguishable on facts, as in those cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there was no reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay. However, in the present case, we find that the assessee has shown sufficient cause explaining the delay. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Respectfully following the said principle, we condone the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
We also find that the assessment in the present case was completed ex- parte under section 144 of the Act, and therefore the issue relating to the addition made under section 69A of the Act has not been properly examined on merits. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. AO shall examine the issue afresh and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all necessary evidences in support of his claim before the Ld. AO. The assessee Page 6 of Dandeboina Ramesh vs. ITO is also directed to co-operate with the Ld. AO in the set-aside proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. However, considering the conduct of the assessee in not properly prosecuting the matter before the lower authorities, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee, which shall be deposited with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and proof of the same shall be furnished before the Ld. AO.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2026.