Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2013-2014. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information regarding cash deposits. The assessee explained the source as remittances from her husband and funds from her sister, but the AO added Rs. 59,23,597 as income from undisclosed sources for lack of proof.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reply and supporting evidence, filed a day late but on the date of the impugned order, should have been considered by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's delayed reply and supporting evidence, and whether the addition made by the AO was justified.
Sections Cited
Sec. 147, Sec. 250, Sec. 144B, Sec. 69, Sec. 234A, Sec. 234B, Sec. 139
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 24.06.2025 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-2014.
2 ITA.No.1326/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order u/s 147 as well as the Order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is bad in law,
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC/CIT(A) have erred in confirming the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO, which has been issued without providing the Appellant with a draft Assessment Order under Section 144B of the Act and therefore the Assessment Order u/s 147 as well as the Order u/s 250 of the Act are liable to be quashed;
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO erred in carrying out and the NFAC/CIT(A) have erred in confirming an addition under Section 69 of the Act amounting to Rs.59,23,597;
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO have erred in levy of interest under Section 234A and Section 234B of the Act and the NFAC/CIT(A) have erred in confirming the levy of interest under Section 234A and Section 234B of the Act
The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.
Each of the Grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
The assessee is an individual and not filed any return of income u/sec.139 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. On the information received from the ADIT-
3 ITA.No.1326/Hyd./2025 (Inv.), Tirupati regarding the cash deposit and other transactions in the SB A/c of the assessee, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 09.03.2020. In response to the notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 22.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,90,700/-, after claiming deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained the source of cash i.e., Rs.15 lakhs belongs to her elder sister who is working in Kuwait for the last 16 years and the balance amount was claimed by the assessee as remittance by her husband who is also working in Kuwait for the past 16 years, apart from the past savings. The Assessing Officer did not accept the reply of the assessee in the absence of proof of withdrawal of the amount from the bank account of her husband as well as the copy of the passport of her sister and proof of withdrawal from the bank account of her sister. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.59,23,597/- as income from undisclosed sources.
4 ITA.No.1326/Hyd./2025 4. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was no participation of the assessee in the proceedings nor any reply or supporting evidence was filed by the assessee.
5. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that in response to the notice of the learned CIT(A) dated 17.06.2025 the assessee filed reply placed at page-33 of the paper book. However, the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on the ground that the assessee has not filed any reply or submissions despite various notices. Thus, the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) without considering the reply filed by the assessee. He has thus, pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply and other record filed by the assessee.
5 ITA.No.1326/Hyd./2025 6. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee has filed reply dated 24.06.2025, whereas the due date of filing the reply was given up-to 23.06.2025. Therefore, the reply filed by the assessee was not considered by the learned CIT(A). He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The learned CIT(A) has issued various notices to the assessee, details of which are given in para-4 of the Order as under:
S.No. Date of Date of Remarks Issue Compliance 1. 21.12.2023 27.12.2023 Requested for Adjournment. 2. 15.01.2024 22.01.2024 Requested for Adjournment of 3 weeks. 3. 24.04.2025 16.05.2025 Once again requested for Adjournment and sought for one month time. 4. 17.06.2025 23.06.2025 Final opportunity given. No response filed.
7.1. When no response was received to the notices, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any submissions. It is pertinent to note that in response to the earlier notices issued
6 ITA.No.1326/Hyd./2025 by the learned CIT(A), the assessee sought adjournments which were granted. Against the last notice dated 17.06.2025, the assessee filed its reply along with submissions and other documents as well as supporting evidence including a petition for additional evidence. Though the assessee was asked to file reply up-to 23.06.2025, however, the assessee has uploaded the reply vide acknowledgment dated 24.06.2025. Thus, the reply was filed by the assessee after a delay of 01 day, but it was filed on the date when the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A). Once the reply was filed by the assessee and was available with the learned CIT(A) as on the date of the order, then the same ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, when the Assessing Officer has made the addition for want of supporting evidence and the assessee filed supporting evidence before the learned CIT(A) vide acknowledgment dated 24.06.2025, then the same ought to have been considered by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned
7 ITA.No.1326/Hyd./2025 order of the learned CIT(A) is set-aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply as well as supporting evidence filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. We Order accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.01.2026.