NAGESH PANJALA,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 874/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 October 2025AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and bonafide, and applying a lenient approach as per the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji. On merits, the Tribunal noted that proceedings before the AO were ex-parte. However, before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed a response with relevant details. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering these submissions, relying on judicial pronouncements like Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's submissions, which were filed before the due date. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant details when the appeal is posted for hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nagesh Panjala, a fruit merchant, failed to file his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18, despite depositing Rs. 1,05,28,000 cash in the bank and withdrawing Rs. 41,00,099. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, issued notices under Section 148 and 142(1), and the assessee eventually filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 4,18,400. During assessment, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,46,28,099 under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, assessing total income at Rs. 1,50,46,499. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but despite multiple notices, failed to file submissions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 33 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned? (Question of fact) - Assessee's contention: The delay was not due to negligence but due to lack of knowledge of accessing the Income Tax portal and heavy rains preventing timely information transfer to the authorized representative. The delay is small and the assessee has a fair chance of success. - Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to demonstrate a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, and therefore, it should not be condoned. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,46,28,099 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE was justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits? - Assessee's contention: The AO erred in making the addition without appreciating documentary evidence. The CIT(A) violated the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, despite the assessee filing submissions and evidence. Principles of natural justice were violated as sufficient opportunities were not provided. The matter should be remitted to the CIT(A). - Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to respond to notices from both the AO and CIT(A) with supporting evidence. The AO rightly made additions, and the CIT(A) rightly sustained them. The order of the CIT(A) should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 04.06.2024 relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a fruit merchant at Bhupalpally. During the assessment year 2017-2018 the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.1,05,28,000/- cash in Bank and Rs.41,0,099/- withdrawals from Bank. However, the assessee did not file his return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason believe that the income chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment and reopened the case of the assessee u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after getting necessary approval u/sec. 151 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee on 23.03.2021. Further, statutory notices were also issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec. 142(1) of the Act on 11.11.2021 and 26.11.2021. The assessee had filed his return of income in response to notice issued u/sec. 148 Act by admitting an income of Rs.4,18,400/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee in response to the notices filed bank statement, demand challan and statement of income on 13.12.2021 for the impugned assessment year 2017-2018. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/sec.142(1) of the Act on 22.12.2021 and notice under sec. 143(2) of the Act on 22.12.2021. Despite providing various opportunities, the assessee did not file his submissions before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,50,46,499/- by making addition of Rs.1,46,28,099/-u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), although, notices were issued u/sec.250 of the Act on 3 occasions i.e., on 16.11.2022, 01.05.2024 and 15.05.2024, the assessee did not file any submissions with supporting documentary evidences. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 33 days.

5.

CA, Pavan Kumar Gorti, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee was not aware of the order of the learned CIT(A). He submitted that, the email ID, mobile number appearing in the Income Tax e-filing portal belongs to the Tax Consultant who is looking after the assessee's tax returns. Further, due to heavy rains, the assessee could not give information to the Authorised Representative in time and that the delay is not due to negligence and it is due to lack of knowledge of accessing the Income Tax Portal by the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded that, taking into consideration of smallness of delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, he submitted that, the delay may please be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication as the assessee has got fair chances to succeed in his appeal.

6.

Sri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' and, therefore, he pleaded that, the delay should not be condoned.

7.

We have heard both the parties, perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee in his affidavit are seems to be genuine and bonafide by taking note of chronology of dates and events furnished by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and also directed the lower courts to follow a lenient approach for condoning the delay. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra), there is no dispute if an appeal is dismissed on account of technicalities, a meritorious case may be thrown-out of judicial review. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the courts must have a liberal approach or lenient approach considering the reasons given by the petitioners or appellants. Therefore, going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra) and also considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

8.

CA, Pavan Kumar Gorti, Learned Counsel for the Assessee

coming to the merits of the case submitted that, although, the assessee has furnished bank statement, demand challan and statement of income during the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the relevant documentary evidences, made addition u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act at Rs.1,46,28,099/- (i.e., cash deposit amount of Rs. 1,05,28,000/- and withdrawals from the Bank amounting to Rs.41,0,099/-]. Thus, the Assessing Officer erred in making the said addition in the hands of the assessee. Further, during the appellate proceedings, although, the assessee has furnished detailed written submissions in support of his contention along with supporting documentary evidences, the learned CIT(A), without appreciating the relevant facts, has simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution by following certain judicial precedents and without deciding the issue on merits and thereby, the learned CIT(A) has violated the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per which, the learned CIT(A) is duty bound to decide the appeal on merits, even if, the assessee did not appear before him. He submitted that, the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunities to substantiate his case and thereby, the authorities below violated the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore, submitted that, the issue may be remitted back to the file of learned CIT(A) by setting aside the Order of the learned CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

9.

Sri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that, although, the authorities below has provided various opportunities, the assessee did not choose to respond to the notices issued to substantiate his case. Therefore, in absence of supporting documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has rightly made the impugned addition u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee despite providing sufficient opportunity, has not filed any submissions along with supporting documentary evidences to substantiate his case. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

10.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Assessing Officer are ex-parte. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any details before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the source of the cash deposits into bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an addition towards cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act and brought it to tax under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Before the Ld. CIT(A), although, the assessee had filed response with relevant details, but, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee, has passed the order for non-prosecution and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, by following certain judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar VS., CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). The assessee had furnished relevant response filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on or before the date provided by the Ld. CIT(A) for filing response, which is available in the paper book filed by the assessee. Since the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution without considering the responses filed by the assessee, in our considered view, the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the issue after considering the relevant submissions made by the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), and also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall furnish relevant details as and when the appeal is posted for hearing.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th October, 2025. (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 29.10.2025. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →