Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2018-19 but made cash deposits of Rs. 77,52,000/- (later determined as Rs. 81,04,188/-). The case was reopened, and the AO made an addition for unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 124 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed in limine for not condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal, considering that the assessee did not receive communication about the assessment order and had filed a condonation petition. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the 124-day delay in filing the appeal; and the merits of the addition for unexplained cash deposits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 148A(d), 142(1), 133(6), 69A, 144B
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
आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 413/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gulipalli Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bobbili. Ward-1, PAN: CBNPG3883K Vizianagaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, 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/250/2025-26/1075713918(1), dated 22/04/2025 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2018-19. 2 Gulipalli Satish 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the AY 2018-19. As per the information flagged as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT through ITBA, it was noticed that the assessee during the FY 2017-18 relevant to the AY 2018-19 made cash deposits in his bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 77,52,000/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened for the AY 2018-19 by issue of notice U/s. 148 dated 04/04/2022 after complying with the provisions of section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/11/2023 calling for the details. However, the assessee has not submitted any details. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice U/s. 144 of the Act on 19/12/2023, however, the assessee did not submit any details. Further, another show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 16/01/2024 which was not responded by the assessee. In the meantime, during the course of the proceedings, the Ld. AO obtained information from the bank authorities by issuing notice U/s. 133(6) of the Act. On a perusal and verification of the information and the material available before him, the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 81,04,188/- in his
3 Gulipalli Satish bank accounts however, there was no explanation to offer from the assessee in respect of the variations proposed in the show cause notice and therefore, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 81,04,188/- towards unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 81,04,188/- and passed the order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/02/2024f. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 124 days. 3. 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: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 81,04,188/- made by the AO U/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.” 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
4 Gulipalli Satish 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. 5. On the other hand, it was submission of the Ld. DR that the assessee failed to file condonation petition 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). 6. 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 5 Gulipalli Satish 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 124 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 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. (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
6 Gulipalli Satish
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. "नधा"रती/ The Assessee – Gulipalli Satish, D.No. 164-214, Tarakarama Colony, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh-535558. 2. राज"व/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, O/o. ITO, Koppu Guarana Building, Siddartha Nagar, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh- 535002. 3. 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