Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was carried out against the assessee on 27.09.2018. For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit. For A.Y. 2015-16, additions of Rs. 25,55,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 and Rs. 2,44,00,000/- as unexplained loans under Section 68 were made. For A.Y. 2017-18, an addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- was made under Section 69A for an unexplained gift to his sister-in-law. The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 843 days due to medical reasons.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 843 days in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's medical condition as 'sufficient cause' based on the principle of liberal approach for condonation of delay. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that all additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) for all assessment years were not based on incriminating material found during the search operation. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of all additions across all assessment years.
Key Issues
Whether delay in filing appeals due to medical reasons constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation. Whether additions made in search assessments under Section 68, Section 69, and Section 69A can be sustained without incriminating material found during the search operation, particularly for completed/unabated assessments, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
Sections Cited
139, 153A, 142(1), 68, 69, 69A, 132, 132A, 147, 148, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad
करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R. Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 04.11.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 26.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :
The captioned appeals are filed by a single assessee viz., ‘Kondal Reddy Anumula’ against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad dated, 22.08.2022 relating to the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2017-18, respectively. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
At the outset, there is a delay of 843 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A., submitted that, an affidavit has been filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. It was submitted that, the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, as detailed in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation petition. The learned counsel for the assessee explained that, the assessee has been suffering from a psychiatric disorder namely “Dissociative Amnesia” coupled with high blood pressure and sugar levels since June, 2022, resulting in memory loss, severe stress, and anxiety. It was submitted that, the assessee has been under continuous medical treatment at Medicover Hospitals, Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad, and due to the said medical condition, the assessee Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad. The assessee has also filed medical records issued by Medicover Hospitals to substantiate the treatment undergone. It was further submitted that, the assessee had no knowledge about the appellate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Hyderabad, and consequently could not file the appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal within the prescribed time. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee came to know about the disposal of the said appeal only in February, 2025, when a call was received from the Income Tax Department informing about an outstanding tax demand for the A.Y. 2013-14. Upon verification of the income tax portal, the assessee came to know about the disposal of the appeal. Immediately thereafter, the assessee contacted a senior Chartered Accountant and initiated steps for preparation and filing of the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals were filed on 20.02.2025, resulting in a delay of 843 days.
The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the delay was caused solely due to medical reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and that, there part. In view of the facts and circumstances explained in the affidavit filed by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee requested that, the delay of 843 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the appeals may be admitted and decided on merits.
The learned Sr.A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, opposed the petition filed by the assessee for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, and argued that, the assessee had filed the appeal with an inordinate delay of 843 days, for which the reasons given by the assessee in their petition and affidavit filed for explaining the reasons do not come under ‘sufficient cause’ as provided under the Act, and thus, the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. The Learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue further referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, along with evidences submitted that, if we go by the medical records furnished by the assessee, they pertain to routine health issues of an individual which cannot be considered as fatal or serious medical issues which can prevent any person from doing day-to-day activities, and therefore, argued that, because of cannot be accepted. The Learned Senior A.R for the Revenue further submitted that, condonation of delay is not a matter of right for the individual, and it is for the assessee to explain each day of delay with ‘sufficient reasonable cause’. If the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal do not come under ‘sufficient cause’, then the Court cannot condone the delay, even if such delay is one day delay in filing of the appeal. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal do not come under ‘sufficient reasonable cause’, and thus, the delay in filing of the appeal should not be condoned.
We have heard both the parties and perused the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay of 843 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Since the assessee has explained the delay by filing an affidavit supported by medical records evidencing continuous treatment for the psychiatric disorder, it is clear that, the delay arose due to circumstances beyond his control. We find that, the reasons explained by the chronology of events furnished along with the medical evidence. We also find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down principles for adopting a liberal approach while considering condonation of delay. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case and considering the submissions and evidence placed on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the assessee was having medical emergencies which prevented him from filing the appeal on or before the due date provided under the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, there is a ‘sufficient cause’ for the assessee for not filing appeals in time. Therefore, we condone the delay caused in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication.
6. First, we take up assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No.284/Hyd/2025. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the additions made, which is not based on any incriminating material.
3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- 4. The Appellate Commissioner erred in changing the charging section from 68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant.
5. The Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that sufficient time was not provided during the course of assessment proceedings.
Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.”
The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013- 14 under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation was carried out on 27.09.2018 in the case of the assessee. Consequent to search, a notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 03.03.2020 and duly served on the assessee, requesting the assessee to file return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14. In response to notice issued under Section 153A, the assessee has not filed any return of income. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 11.11.2020 and 27.11.2020 was issued to the assessee and called upon the assessee to furnish relevant details, including financial statements, etc. In response to the Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2021, the assessee furnished copies of Balance Sheet for the F.Y. 2012-13. The A.O., on the basis of Balance Sheet submitted by the assessee, observed that, the assessee has opening capital of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. Therefore, called upon the assessee to furnish relevant evidences. Since the assessee has not furnished relevant evidences, the A.O. made additions of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, as unexplained cash credit.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the addition made by the A.O. towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and claimed that, the additions made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The assessee had also contested the issues on merit and claimed that, opening capital is not an income earned for the year under consideration and thus, cannot be made addition for the assessment year under consideration.
During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee to file relevant evidences in support of his case. The assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the issues on merit, including the grounds raised by the assessee challenging additions made towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material, and held that, once the search takes place, then the A.O. is bound to issue notice and assess the income for the last six assessment years preceding the assessment year in which search is conducted, and consequently the additions made by the A.O. cannot be restricted to the incriminating material found as a result of search. Therefore, rejected the legal ground taken by the assessee challenging the validity of additions in the absence of incriminating material was rejected. The Ld. CIT(A) also sustained addition towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, on the ground that, the assessee could not furnish relevant evidences in support of opening capital and how said opening capital had earned. sustained the additions made by the A.O.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the assessee, G. Srinivas Rao, CA, referring to ground numbers 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal, submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions made by the A.O. towards opening capital of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, even though the additions made by the A.O. are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search conducted on 27.09.2018, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O., where the A.O. refers to the Balance Sheet submitted by the assessee, but fact remains that, the Balance Sheet submitted by the assessee is not an incriminating material. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212.
The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because, the assessee is a non-filer and has not filed a return of income under Section 139 or under Section 153A of the Act. Therefore, whatever the materials considered by the A.O., including the Balance Sheet submitted by the assessee, constitute incriminating material, and therefore, the additions made by the A.O. are on the basis of evidences available during the course of assessment proceedings, and thus, there is no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), and thus, the same should be rejected.
We have heard both sides, perused the material on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, there was a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 27.09.2018, and during the course of additions made by the A.O. towards opening capital of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. In other words, the A.O. made additions towards opening capital as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, on the basis of Balance Sheet submitted by the assessee, which was not found and seized during the course of search, but not on the basis of any incriminating material found as a result of search. It is well- established principle of law by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) that, in respect of completed unabated assessments, no additions can be made by the A.O. in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, there is no dispute that the additions made by the A.O. towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O., where the A.O. has not referred to any incriminating material in respect of additions towards opening capital. Further, the assessment year in question is unabated/concluded, as on the date of search i.e. 27.09.2018, and the time limit available for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which would expire on 30.09.2014. Since the assessment year in question is unabated/concluded at the date of search, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O., in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search, cannot be sustained, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra).
The assessee relied upon the decision of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) in support of his contentions, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, under identical set of facts, held as under :
Assessment under section 153A is linked with the search and requisition under sections 132 and 132A. The object of section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a case where undisclosed income is found on the basis of incriminating material, AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess total income for the entire six years block assessment period, even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per second proviso to section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If AO's submission was accepted, in that case, there would be two assessment orders, which is not be permissible under the law, second proviso to section 153A and sub-section (2) of section 153A would be is not permissible in law. Accordingly, in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148, and these powers are saved.
In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also by respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that, the additions made by the A.O. towards opening capital under Section 68 of the Act, in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act, cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the relevant facts, simply sustained additions made by the A.O. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards opening capital of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is in for A.Y. 2013-14 is allowed.
Now, we take up assessee’s appeal in for A.Y. 2015-16. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
“1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O which is not based on any incriminating material.
3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,50,000/-being addition of cash payments.
4. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,44,00,000/-being loans taken added u/s.68.
5. The Appellate Commissioner erred in changing the charging section from 68 to 69A, without giving an opportunity to the Appellant 6. The Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellant that sufficient time was not provided, during the course of assessment proceedings.
7. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.”
The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is addition towards unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 25,50,000/- and addition towards unexplained loans under Section 68 of the Act for Rs. 2,44,00,000/-, in absence of incriminating material found as a result of search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained investment and unexplained loans in the absence of incriminating material found as a result of search in light of the decision in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra) and argued that the additions made by the A.O. without any incriminating material found as a result of search is illegal and cannot be sustained. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14 in where, under identical set of facts and also by following the decision in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell
(P) Ltd. (supra), it was held that, in completed/unabated assessments, the additions made by the A.O. without any reference to incriminating material found as a result of search cannot be sustained.
In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained investments for Rs. 20,55,000/- are not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search. Although the A.O. refers to certain CCD documents, but on perusal of the relevant documents, we payment of cash of Rs. 25,50,000/- as claimed by the A.O. Further, the said agreement is undated and unsigned by vendor and vendee. Since it is unsigned and undated agreement, cannot be considered as incriminating material. Therefore, on the basis of the said document, which is not incriminating in nature, the additions made by the A.O. cannot be upheld.
Insofar as the addition made towards unexplained loan of Rs. 2,44,000/-, we find that the A.O. made additions on the basis of Balance Sheet submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, but not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O. on this issue, where the A.O. has not made any reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search. In absence of any incriminating material, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, in completed or unabated assessment cannot be sustained as held in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, by respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (supra), we direct the A.O. to delete the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained investment of Rs. 25,55,000/- under Section 69 of the Act, and also the addition of Rs. 2,44,000/- made under Section 68 of the Act, towards unexplained loan.
As we have already allowed the assessee’s legal ground, the adjudication of the remaining grounds will be merely academic in nature and thus, becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the remaining grounds are dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 is allowed.
“1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law. facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O which is not based on any incriminating material. 3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.80,00,000/-as unexplained income u/s 69A. 4. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.
The only issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards Gift given to Smt. Geetha Sudini (Sister-in-law of the assessee). The A.O. made addition towards Rs. 80,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that, during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Smt. Geetha Sudini, the assessee had issued confirmation letter for a Gift of Rs. 80,00,000/- to Smt. Geetha Sudini, his sister-in-law, and to this effect had produced Gift Declaration. The A.O. further observed that, the assessee could not explain the Gift given to Smt. Geetha Sudini and also failed to explain the source of the Gift and therefore, made addition under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making additions towards Gift of Rs. 80,00,000/- given to Smt. Geetha Sudini, without appreciating the fact that the above Gift was given through proper banking channels out of the funds available with the assessee, which is evident from the relevant bank account statements furnished in support of the contentions. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee had given Gift of Rs. 80,00,000/- out of opening bank balance available, which was carried forward from the previous financial years and therefore, the additions made by the A.O. towards unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that the additions made by the A.O. should be deleted.
The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of its claim before the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A), which is evident from the ex parte assessment order and ex parte appellate order passed by the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A), respectively. Further, although the assessee has furnished bank account statements and claimed that, the Gift had been paid through proper banking channels, but the also the source for the said Gift. The A.O., after considering relevant submissions, has rightly made addition towards Gift under Section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.
We have heard both partis, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. made additions towards Gift paid by the assessee to Smt. Geetha Sudini (Sister-in-law of the assessee) for Rs. 80,00,000/- on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness by filing relevant supporting evidence. It was the argument of the counsel for the assessee that the assessee had given Gift of Rs. 80,00,000/- through bank out of funds brought forward from earlier financial years. To this effect, the assessee has furnished relevant bank account statements. We find that the assessee has paid Rs. 80,00,000/- to Smt. Geetha Sudini on 26.05.2016 through HDFC Bank Account No. 50100090393756. Further, the above Gift has been paid out of funds available in the bank account of the assessee, which is evident from the relevant bank account statement filed by the assessee, where the assessee has received sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 21.03.2016 from Sameer Kumar Dave. Further, from the details furnished by the assessee, it is evident that, the assessee had given Gift to his sister-in-law out of known sources of income, being funds available in his bank account. Further, the assessee has also established the relationship between the donor and the donee, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the A.O. where the A.O. himself has admitted the fact that, the donee is the sister-in-law of the assessee. Since the assessee has explained the relationship between the donor and donee and also the source for Gift of Rs. 80,00,000/- by filing relevant evidences, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O. towards Gift given to sister-in-law under Section 69A of Sustained the Act, as unexplained money cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the relevant facts, simply sustained the additions made by the A.O. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the additions made towards mate Gift of Rs. 80,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act, as unexplained money.
To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th November, 2025. श्री विजय पाल राि (मंजूिधथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) (VIJAY PAL RAO) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT