ANAKALA SUNITHA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1504/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 December 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's mother's illness. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer for AY 2016-17, made substantial financial transactions. Proceedings under Section 148 were initiated. The AO added Rs. 7,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits, which the assessee could not satisfactorily explain with documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned? 2. Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits on merits warrants reconsideration?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “SMC” Bench, Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri S. Mookambikeyan, Sr

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Anakala Sunitha, H.No.4-7-146/2, Plot No.54, Opp. To Police Station, Hayabagh, Ranga Reddy District – 501506, Telangana. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward –9(1), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →