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

4 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 3. 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.

5 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 4. 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. 5. 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.”

4.1. 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 6 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 made by the Assessing Officer without considering the crucial fact of declaring the income from the business and turnover of the assessee as well as the deposit made in the bank account duly reflected in the said return of income as manifest from the computation of income, profit and loss account and balance sheet as well as tax audit report, then, we are of the considered view, that the appeal of the assessee has to be decided on merits instead of dismissing the same on technicalities. Hence, by taking a lenient view, we condone the delay of 270 days in filing the present appeal.

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO ought to have appreciated that there is inadvertent mistake in linking of PAN to alleged Canara Bank Account in incorrect i.e. PAN: AAIHR4276B held under HUF capacity has been linked to Bank Account held under Individual capacity having PAN: AUZPB6040J.

2. 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 7 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 transactions have been already reported in her personal audited accounts and tax returns 3. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.”

8 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 6. 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 9 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for want of any submissions of or supporting evidence filed by the assessee. Now the assessee has produced relevant records including return of income, books of account and audit report showing that the turnover which is taken by the Assessing Officer for estimating income @ 8% was already declared by the assessee in the return of income filed under individual PAN AUZPB6040J filed on 07.11.2017 along with Form 3CD. The assessee has already declared the bank account in question as well as the cash deposit in the bank account with Canara Bank, Ahmed Nagar, Hyderabad amounting to Rs.12,29,000/-in the computation of total income. Thus, prima facie it is a case of double taxation of the same income which was offered by the assessee in the return of income filed under individual PAN but the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings to assess the income from business as well as deposit in the bank account under the HUF PAN AAIHR4276B. Accordingly, when the additions made by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order without considering the fact that the assessee already 10 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 filed the return of income declaring the business income from the turnover which was considered by the Assessing Officer for estimation of the business income of the assessee, the order passed by the Assessing Officer amounts to double taxation. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and examination of the relevant facts and the evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is also directed to conduct an enquiry and scrutinize the return of income filed by the assessee under the individual PAN AUZPB6040J instead of making the addition under the HUF PAN. It appears that the assessee could not update the PAN with the bank which has led to the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under the HUF PAN. Needless to say, before passing the fresh order the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of being heard.

11 ITA.No.2022/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.03.2026.