MADHAVI BEERAVOLU,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1459/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Madhavi Beeravolu, who did not initially file her income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after discovering certain transactions, including the sale of immovable property and cash deposits. The ITO assessed her income and imposed penalties under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A for underreported income. The assessee's appeal against the assessment and penalties was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delay, but the Tribunal later set aside this dismissal and directed a re-evaluation. The Tribunal has now directed that the penalties also be re-evaluated in light of the forthcoming decision on the quantum appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784912 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Įी रवीश सूद, माननीय ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 1459 & 1460/Hyd/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Madhavi Beeravolu, Hyderabad. PAN: BACPB5104M VS. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) करदाताकाĤǓतǓनͬध×व/ Assessee Represented by : Veeravenkata Satya Shiva Ryali, CA राजèवकाĤǓतǓनͬध×व/ Department Represented by : Payal Gupta, Sr. AR सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेकȧǓतͬथ/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 06/11/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/ Date of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 11/07/2025, which in Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO turn arise from the order passed by the AO under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) dated 08/08/2024 and under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/09/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. As common issue is involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had not filed her return of income for the subject year. Thereafter, the AO based on the information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out certain transactions, viz., (i) sold an immovable property; and (ii) deposited cash in her bank account with DCB Bank Ltd, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 08/04/2022 was issued by the AO. 3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/03/2024 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,00,91,053/-, inter alia, making certain additions, viz., (i) addition on account of sale of immovable property: Rs. 83,00,000/-; (ii) cash deposits with DCB Bank Ltd: Rs. 12,16,070/-; and (iii) addition under the head income from business: Rs.5,74,983/-. The AO while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and under section 270A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO 4. Subsequently, the AO vide his order under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 08/08/2024 with respect to the addition of Rs. 12,16,070/- made by him under section 69A of the Act imposed a penalty @10% of Rs.93,941/-. Also, the AO vide his order under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/09/2024 imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,15,052/- with respect to the tax payable on the under reported income of the assessee. 5. Thereafter, the assessee aggrieved with the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/03/2024 carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same on account of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the CIT(A) dismissing her quantum appeal before the Tribunal. 7. As is discernible from the record, the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 1154/Hyd/2025, dated 29/10/2025 had after taking cognizance of the fact that the AO had passed an ex-parte assessment order, which thereafter had been upheld by the CIT(A), who had dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay involved in the same, set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file to reconsider the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO 8. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty imposed by the AO vide his order under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 08/08/2024 and under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/09/2024 was carried by her in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee has assailed before us the respective orders passed by the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the AO vide his orders, viz., (i) under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 08/08/2022; and (ii) under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/09/2024. 10. Sri Veeravenkata Satya Shiva Ryali, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted, that the Tribunal vide its order passed under ITA No.1154/Hyd/2025, dated 29/10/2025 had set aside the order passed by the CIT(A), NAFAC, dated 16/05/2025 wherein he had by declining to condone the delay in filing of the quantum appeal filed by the assessee before him upheld the assessment and had directed him to readjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that now when the appeal filed by the assessee against the quantum assessment wherein the subject penalties under section 271AAC(1) and under section 270A of the Act were initiated had been restored by the Tribunal to the file of the CIT(A), therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO appeals filed against the said respective penalties imposed by the AO in all fairness be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is re-adjudicated by him. 11. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 13. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the record that the assessee had suffered the dismissal of her appeal against the ex- parte order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/03/2024 for the reason that the CIT(A) had declined to condone the delay involved in the appeal filed before him. However, we find that the CIT(A) order dismissing the quantum appeal of the assessee had thereafter been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.1154/Hyd/2025, dated 29/10/2025 wherein the AO has been directed to re-adjudicate the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the Tribunal, as under: “7. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, admittedly, there Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO is no dispute between the parties that, the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,00,91,053/- by making additions on account of sale of immovable property amounting to Rs.83 lakhs and cash deposited into DCB Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs.12,16,070/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, in response to notice issued by the learned CIT(A) u/sec.250 of the Act, the assessee has filed submissions dated 02.05.2025 which is evident from page 78 of the paper book. However, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 177 days in filing the appeal before him. We find that, the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal to the effect that, her father has got hospitalized on multiple occasions and expired and produced the death certificate also before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) without considering the ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ explained by the assessee with supporting medical certificates and death certificate of her father, simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay, without deciding the appeal on merits. Since, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, without considering the submissions of the assessee, in our considered view, the matter needs to be set-aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) to reconsider the issue after considering the relevant submissions made by the assessee. Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the learned CIT(A) and also direct the learned CIT(A) to reconsider the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall furnish relevant details as and when the appeal is posted for hearing. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are of the considered view that now when the order passed by the CIT(A), dated 16/05/2025 arising out of the quantum assessment framed in the case of the assessee under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 06/03/2024, wherein the subject penalties were initiated in the case of the assessee ie., under section 271AAC(1) and under section 270A of the Act, had been set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re- adjudicate the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO heard to the assessee, therefore, the aforementioned penalties on a similar footing, in all fairness, requires to be restored to his file with a direction to redecide the same after adjudicating the quantum appeal of the assessee. 15. Resultantly, the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th November, 2025. S Sd/- Sd/- (मधुसूदन सावͫडया) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Sd/- (रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER d/- Sd Hyderabad, dated 12.11.2025. OKK/sps Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos. 1459 and 1460/Hyd/2025 Madhavi Beeravolu vs. ITO आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/The Assessee : Madhavi Beeravolu, H. No. 1-31, Puppalaguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad- 500089. 2. राजèव/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण /DR,ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गाड[फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad. Printed from counselvise.com "