VASANTHA LAXMI VEERAPANENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, there is a delay of 25 days in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished by the assessee. We, therefore, condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as under.

In this case, assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act”] for the assessment year 2017-2018 was completed on 24.03.2022 by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,83,310/-. The assessee has filed an appeal against the assessment order before the learned CIT(A) on 19.04.2022 and claimed that the said appeal is pending for 4 ITA.No.1246/Hyd./2024 disposal. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.154 of the Act dated 13.06.2023 and called-upon the assessee to explain as to why an order u/sec.154 shall not be passed rectifying the mistake apparent on record inasmuch as, although, the total income was assessed at Rs.65,83,310/-, but, in the computation of income, the assessed income was taken at Rs.62,54,400/-and further, the tax was not computed as per sec.115BBE of the Act. The assessee filed her objections for computing the tax as per sec.115BBE of the Act on the ground that the transactions are made prior to 15.12.2016 when the provision was not there in the statute. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and passed order u/sec.154 of the Act dated 13.06.2023 and assessed total income at Rs.65,83,310/- and computed tax as per the provisions of sec.115BBE of the Act on additions made towards cash deposit of Rs.62,54,400/-.

Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

CA K. Hanmandloo, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.154 of the Act without taking into cognizance of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022, even though, the assessee has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposit and unless the learned CIT(A) decided the said appeal and it’s taxability, he cannot dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/sec.154 of the Act dated 13.06.2023 by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that the 6 ITA.No.1246/Hyd./2024 matter may be remitted back to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide this appeal simultaneously along with the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act or after deciding the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.

Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, fairly agreed that this appeal may be set-aside to the file of learned CIT(A) with appropriate directions to decide afresh along with the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that assessee has filed separate appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 24.03.2022 and challenged consequent additions made towards cash deposit u/sec.69A