Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order confirming an addition of Rs. 10,46,500/- for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The addition was made for unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee claimed the funds were from friends and family due to a medical emergency.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 11-day delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the absence of the assessee and lack of supporting evidence for the source of cash deposits, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were sufficiently explained with documentary evidence, and if the grounds of appeal were validly substantiated.
Sections Cited
69A, 143(3), 144B, 115BBE, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1531/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tirupathi Arsam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mancherial Ward-1 PAN:AGYPA4706B Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: N O N E राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Suresh A, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Tirupathi Arsam (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16.07.2025 for the A.Y. 2022-23. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is observed from the record that on the earlier occasions also, i.e., on 08.01.2016 and 12.02.2016, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment
Page 1 of 8 petition was filed on those dates as well. Even on the date of hearing today, neither any authorized representative appeared nor any adjournment petition was filed seeking time for hearing. In these circumstances, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) and on the basis of the material available on record.
At the outset, it is noticed from the record that the present appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 11 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit filed along with the condonation petition, the assessee has stated that the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be filed on or before 14.09.2025. However, the appeal was actually filed on 25.09.2025, resulting in a delay of 11 days. It has been explained in the affidavit that the counsel for the assessee was preoccupied with statutory income-tax return filing work during the relevant period and therefore could not prepare and finalize the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of the delay.
We have considered the contents of the condonation petition as well as the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay. In our considered opinion, the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is not inordinate. The explanation offered
Page 2 of 8 by the assessee appears to be reasonable and there is no material on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or due to any mala fide intention. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted in order to advance substantial justice, particularly when the delay is not excessive. In the present case, the assessee has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2022–23 on 30.07.2022, declaring a total income of Rs.4,99,920/. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) observed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,46,500/- in his bank account during the year under consideration. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the said cash deposits. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and accordingly treated the same as unexplained money and made an addition of Rs.10,46,500/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Ld. AO thereafter completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act on 20.03.2024, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,46,420/-.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits and accordingly confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. As already noted, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is being disposed of ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Ld. DR and on the basis of the material
Page 4 of 8 available on record. The Ld. DR, relying upon the orders of the lower authorities, submitted that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposits made in the bank account with proper documentary evidence. It was further submitted that both the lower authorities have examined the matter and rightly treated the cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the orders of the lower authorities may be upheld and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the orders passed by the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AO has made the addition of Rs.10,46,500/- under section 69A of the Act as per his observation recorded at page no. 13 and 14 of his order, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
On perusal of the above, we find that the addition of Rs.10,46,500/- has been made by the Ld. AO under section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during the year under consideration. The said
Page 5 of 8 addition has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation along with supporting documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. The observation of the Ld. CIT (A) in this regard is recorded at para no. 4 .1 to 4.2.3 of his order which is to the following effect:
On perusal of above, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO as he was not satisfied with the submission made by the assessee. Before us also, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to controvert the findings recorded by the lower authorities or to place any material on record to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. In the absence of any supporting evidence or explanation from the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made under section 69A of the Act and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.