KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “SM-B” Bench, Hyderabad
प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 05.12.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing
2
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 26.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“(i) The order of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) is erroneous, is contrary to law, principles of natural justice and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case,
Unexplained Money u/s 69A-Loan advanced to Agriculturist-
Rs.15,50,000/-
(ii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the Appellant had already explained the sources for the income vide his letter dated
09/01/2022 and 27/01/2022 to the AO.
(iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to recognize that the Appellant has been in farming business for decades and his accumulated savings and other receivables collected, is the source for the money advanced.
No Addition u/s 69A when Recorded in Books of Accounts:
(iv) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have noted that he Appellant has duly reported all the transactions and monies advanced clearly in the books of accounts.
(v) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has ought to have noted that no addition can be made u/s 69A when the monies, jewellery or valuables have been properly recorded in the books of account.
(vi) The Entire addition is void and ought to be quashed.
Unexplained Investment u/s 69B-Land Purchased-Rs.13,90,000/-
(vii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has travelled beyond the scope of the re- opening while making an addition
(ix) The Learned AO/CITL(A) has failed to note that the purchase is that of an agriculturist land and De information was voluntarily made available by the Appellant himself.
(x) The sources for the same are not of the cash savings from agricultural activities as accommodated by the Appellant.
Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68-Cash in Hand-Rs. 32,605/-
3
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
(x) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has incorrect added the cash in hand of the appellant, at the end of the year, as an unexplained cash credit.
(xi) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have noted that the Appellant has offered Rs.3.6 Lakhs as income during the current year itself and the cash in hand is merely a representation of the cash held in hand by the Appellant from such activities.
Drawings treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C-
Rs.1,55,700/-:
(xii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has incorrectly treated the drawings made from the capital account as unexplained expenditure.
(xiii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no expense claimed or booked by the Appellant in this regard and it is merely drawing from the business accounts.
Agricultural Income Disallowed-Rs. 1,35,000/--No Speaking Order or Basis:
(xiv) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have noted that that the Appellant has been engaged in agricultural activities for more than a decade now,
(xv) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has failed to consider the submissions made by the Appellant proving that the nature of activities is agricultural and the Appellant is engaged in agricultural activities
(xvi) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have noted that that no opportunity was provided nor is there a speaking order vide the above impugned assessment order.
(xvii) Without prejudice to the above grounds raised, the Learned NFAC ought to have appreciated if one addition is made, that explains the sources of other incomes vide the peak credit & telescoping concept.
(xviii) Any other grounds as may be raised during the course of the hearing.”
Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information that though the assessee during the subject year had advanced an unsecured cash loan of Rs. 15,50,000/- to Smt. Sireesha Pochareddy, but had not filed her return of income, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated
4
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of income on 19.04.2021 declaring an income of Rs. 3,62,350/-. 3. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.36,25,655/- after making the following additions/ disallowances: 1 Unexplained money u/s 69A Rs.15,50,000/- 2 Unexplained money u/s 69B Rs.13,90,000/- 3 Unexplained money u/s 68 Rs.32,605/- 4 Drawing as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C Rs.1,55,700/- 5 Agricultural income (no evidence submitted for the agricultural income and expenses) Rs.1,35,000/-
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal by observing as under:
5
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
6
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.
7
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
As the assessee, on the date of hearing of the appeal, had neither put up an appearance nor filed any application for adjournment, therefore, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 after hearing respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We find that the present appeal involves a delay of 350 days, as pointed out by the Registry. On a perusal of the record, we find that the assessee has filed a petition/affidavit, dated 05.02.2025, wherein it is requested by her that the delay of 365 days involved in filing the present appeal be condoned. On a perusal of the affidavit, we find that it is stated by the assessee that the delay in filing the appeal had crept in for the reason that the Chartered Accountant who had handled the case had left the job without handing over the papers to her. Elaborating on her claim, it is stated by her that she had learnt about the dismissal of her appeal by the CIT(A) only when a demand notice for recovery of the outstanding demand was received by her. The assessee further stated that as per the advice of her present counsel, viz. M/s. Victor Grace & Co., Chartered Accountants, she had filed the 8 Kasireddy Sasikalamma present appeal on 13.02.2025, which by that time involved a delay of 365 days. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the “Affidavit”, dated 05.02.2025, filed by the assessee before us, as under :
9
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
On a careful perusal of the aforesaid “affidavit”, we find that though the same at Para 4 makes a reference of filing of the appeal by the assessee on 13.02.2025, resulting in a delay of 60 days, but interestingly, the said “affidavit” is found to be notarized by one Shri K. Subbarao, B.A. B.L., Advocate & Notary
10
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
[G.O.Ms.No.509/2012, 11/99, Gamallapalem, Guntur – 524101,
Tirupati Dist. (A.P.)] on 05.02.2025. 9. We find it incomprehensible that when the “affidavit” at Para
4 itself refers to the date of filing of the appeal by the assessee as 13.02.2025, how the same had been signed by the assessee, and also notarized by the aforementioned notary on 05.02.2025. 10. We are unable to fathom the aforesaid conduct of the assessee. As the assessee has sought for the condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal based upon the aforesaid bogus document i.e “affidavit”, and thus, had not come with clean hands explaining the reason resulting to the delay in filing of the present appeal, therefore, we are constrained to decline the same.
11. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, are constrained to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as barred by limitation.
11
Kasireddy Sasikalamma
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th August, 2025. (श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 06.08.2025. TYNM/sps
आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Kasireddy Sasikalamma, 13/193, Gudur Gamallapalem Street, Gudur, Nellore – 524101. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Gudur. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file
आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary
ITAT, Hyderabad