RAVIPATI RADHA BAI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), HYDERABAD

There is a delay of 270 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is an old lady of 72 years and was carrying out the business as Proprietor of M/s. Ram Agency and M/s. Ram Trading during the year under consideration. The said business was looked after mainly by her near relative/brother Mr. Ventrapragada Vara Prasad who expired on 14.06.2025 after prolonged ill health and therefore, the assessee could not track the tax matter pending before the learned CIT(A) and was not aware about the impugned order dated 07.12.2024 whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that only when the department issued the recovery notice dated 19.09.2025 the assessee took the steps for filing the present appeal which has resulted in a delay of 270 days. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but due to the reasons that the assessee being a 3 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025

On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that when the assessee is doing business then, an excuse cannot be made that the business as well as the tax matter was looked after by her relative who expired in the month of June 2025. The learned DR has thus submitted that the assessee has not explained the reasonable cause in filing the appeal with abnormal delay of 270 days. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit in Para nos.1 to 5 as under: 1. “That I am an individual holding PAN: AUZPB6040J, aged 72 years carrying out business as Proprietor of M/s. Ram Agency and M/s. Ram Trading during the year under review, which were managed by my near relative Mr. Ventrapragada Vara Prasad.

That an assessment order u/s 144 was passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.12.2019 against PAN: AAIHR4276B assessing its total income at Rs.22,74,200/-, resulting in demand of Rs.17,69,221/-.

That an appeal was filed with the Hon. CIT (Appeals) against such order on 23.01.2020, which has been dismissed vide order u/s 250 dated 07.12.2024. 5 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025

That the appeal and tax compliances were looked after by my relative Mr. Vara Prasad, who demised on 14.06.2025 after prolonged ill health and IT files were with him.

I recently came to know that the appeal to be filed against the order dated 07.12.2024 by 05.02.2025 could not be filed due to the health-related issues of Mr. Vara prasad and he did not inform me about non-filing of appeal.”

1. Thus, the assessee has explained the reasons for delay that the business of the assessee was being managed and looked after by her relative Mr. Ventrapragada Vara Prasad who expired on 14.06.2025 after a prolonged illness and therefore, the assessee was not aware about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and non-filing of the appeal against such order. Only when the assessee received a demand notice dated 19.09.2025 the assessee came to know about the impugned order. Having considering the peculiar facts of the case that the Assessing Officer has assessed the income in the hand of the assessee under HUF PAN whereas it is a matter of record that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration u/sec.139(1) of the Act declaring total income from the business under the individual PAN, therefore, the assessment

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO have erred in determining the total income at Rs.22,74,200/- out of transactions made in Canara Bank Account, without appreciating that the alleged bank account belongs to Ravipati Radha Bai in her individual capacity and those

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO have erred in making total additions of Rs. 22,74,200/- alleging that the assessee has failed to give explanation about the nature and source of credits. without appreciating that the written Submissions were made before the A.O on 26 11.2019, 10.12.2019 and 18.12.2019. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition U/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of Rs.12,29,000/- for cash deposits during demonetization period in Canara Bank Account, without appreciating that those cash deposits have been made as Individual Proprietor of business.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1.d. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.10,45,000/- made by the Ld. AO by estimating business profit at 8% of credits in Canara Bank Account, without appreciating that there is no business carried out by HUF and that those credits have been made as Individual Proprietor of business.

Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. AO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad has erred in passing the Order U/s 144 of Income Tax Act. 1961 Dated 30.12.2019 without issuing Draft Assessment Order to raise objections for the addition made.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or substitute any ground of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as learned DR and carefully perused the relevant record. The Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings by recording the fact that the assessee has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration and on the basis of the data analytics and information gathered during the online verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’, it was found that the assessee has deposited substantial cash in bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer has taken the total credit in the bank accounts as well as the cash deposited during the demonetization period under separate heads and consequently, estimated the income of the assessee @ 8% on the total credit in the bank account and also made an addition of Rs.12,29,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank accounts during the demonetization period while passing the ex-parte assessment order dated 30.12.2019. Though the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) however, there was no appearance as well as participation before the learned

Ravipati Radha Bai, 10-4-771/1/A/5, RVR Villa, Sree Ram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad PIN – 500 028.Telangana.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Serilingampally, RR Dist. Hyderabad. PIN – 500 084. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.