Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file his Income Tax Return for AY 2015-16. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 due to an unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 50.87 lakhs. Despite statutory notices, the assessee failed to furnish information, leading to a Best Judgment Assessment under Section 144 and an addition under Section 69A. The assessee filed a belated appeal to the CIT(A) with a 271-day delay.
Held
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for the delay. The ITAT condoned the 271-day delay, noting that the assessee had not received communication of the assessment order. The ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of assessment order. 2. Validity of best judgment assessment proceedings under Section 144 and addition under Section 69A. 3. Applicability of monetary limits under Section 149(1)(b) for reassessment.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 69A, 250, 149(1)(b), 139, 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Madhavarao Yarrakula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tenali. Ward-1, PAN: AKXYP5376N Tenali. (अपीलाथ�/ Appellant) (��यथ�/ Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri DL Narasimha Rao, Advocate ��याथ� क� ओर से / Respondent by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Vice President:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074771554(1), dated 20/03/2025 arising out of the order passed U/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], dated 18/01/2023 for the AY 2015-16.
Madhavarao Yarrakula 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee did not file his return of income for the AY 2015-16. The Ld. AO initiated the proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act for the reason that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 50,87,000/- in his bank account maintained with Bank of India during the Ay 2015-16. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 of the Act, dated 31/03/2022 was issued on the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld.AO issued statutory notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 18/01/2023. However, the assessee did not furnish the information as required by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO thereafter issued a show cause notice on 08/02/2023 wherein the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the proceedings U/s. 144 of the Act may not be initiated to complete the assessment proceedings on merits based on the material available on record. However, the assessee did not respond to the show cause. Therefore, the Ld. AO proceed to make Best Judgment assessment U/s. 144 of the Act and accordingly, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 50,87,000/- towards unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act in the absence of any explanation from the assessee in respect of the source of the cash deposits made in his bank account. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the total income of Madhavarao Yarrakula the assessee at Rs. 50,87,000/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/03/2023. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 271 days.
On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that the assessee has not made a case for having ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal:
4. At the outset, it was the submission of the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. He further submitted that the Ld. AO also passed ex-parte order and the assessee has not received any communication regarding the passing of the assessment order. Therefore, the delay has been occurred but the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the explanation of the assessee, erroneously dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the case on merits.
Madhavarao Yarrakula 5. On the other hand, it was submission of the Ld. DR that the assessee failed to give a sufficient and reasonable cause for belated filing of the appeal and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had left with no option except dismissing the appeal. Therefore, she pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides and perused the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities as well as the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had not received any communication about the passing of the assessment order and therefore, the delay had been occurred and the assessee has also filed a condonation petition but the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the delay condonation petition and dismissed the appeal in limine. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 271 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case of merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we Madhavarao Yarrakula also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.
Pronounced in the open Court on 14th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (एस बालाकृ�णन) (दु�वू� आर.एल रे�डी) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT Dated : 14/08/2025 OKK - SPS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. �नधा�रती/ The Assessee – Madhavarao Yarrakula, 1-27-36/2, Tankasala Vari Veedhi, Nazar Peta, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh-522201. 2. राज�व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Opp. Sai Baba Temple, Bose Road, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh-522201.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4.आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, �वशाखापटणम/ DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गाड� फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam