" SA No 11 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 1 of 3 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member S.A. No.11/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.425/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Gulnaz Begum Mohd. Madanapalli, Chittoor PAN:ASBPG7313B Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Madanapalle (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri M.V. Joshi, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 02/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President By way of this stay application, the assessee is seeking stay against the outstanding demand of Rs.1,55,39,365/- arising from the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2016-17. 2. The learned AR of the assessee has filed an application for adjournment of the hearing of the stay which has been SA No 11 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 2 of 3 declined by the Bench and consequently, the matter was heard. The assessment order was passed ex-parte when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and consequently, an addition of Rs.1.96 crores was made by the Assessing Officer under 3 heads i.e. (i)cash deposits in the Bank Account, (ii) unexplained investment in the immovable property and (iii) an addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A) but the same was also dismissed as barred by limitation. Thus, it appears that there was no representation by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT (A) and therefore, the assessee could not file any supporting details and evidence to show the source of the deposits, investment as well as the addition made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.T. Act. The learned DR has pointed out that the assessee has also not paid any amount against the demand and the appeal of the assessee was invalid before the learned CIT (A) being barred by limitation. 3. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has not made out any case for the stay of the impugned demand and consequently, the stay is rejected. However, we grand an early hearing of the appeal of the assessee from 11th June, 2025 to 15th May, 2025. The parties are directed not to take any adjournment of hearing. The registry is directed to fix the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.425/Hyd/2025 in the category of out of turn hearing on 15th May, 2025. SA No 11 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 3 of 3 4. In the result, Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing i.e. 2nd May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 2nd May, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. Gulnaz Begum Mohammed, c/o P Murali & Co. CAs, 6-3- 655/2/3 Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 2 Income Tax Officer Ward -1 Madanapalle, Chittoor 3 Pr. CIT - Chittoor 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "