MOHAMMED GOUSE MOINUDDIN,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 900/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2014-2015. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.15.78 crore as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on credits in the assessee's bank account. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case and made additions due to insufficient explanations and documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) upheld the additions made. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to reconcile the credits in his bank accounts and thus remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775996 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADAN MOHAN MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, Hyderabad PIN – 500 008. Telangana. PAN BCMPM1999P vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri SK Gupta And Sri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocates For Revenue : Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order dated 17.01.2025 of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2014-2015. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay contending, inter alia, that, the Income Tax Practitioner who is looking after the tax matters of the society during the course of assessment proceedings and appeal proceedings and, therefore, he was not aware of ITBA portal. Further, when the tax demand notice received by the assessee, the tax practitioner became incommunicado and, therefore, there is a delay in filing the instant appeal before the Tribunal, which is neither willful nor for want of any undue benefit. He, therefore, pleaded that, the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Sri Madan Mohan Meena, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly object for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties, perused the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking for condonation of 52 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, there is a ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ for the assessee in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed date. We, therefore, condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had not filed return of income for the year under consideration within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of section 139 of the Act. Based on the specific information available with the Department, the case of the assessee for the year under consideration was reopened by issuance notice u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] dated 19.07.2022. The Assessing Officer issued various statutory notices calling the assessee to furnish his explanation along with relevant documentary evidences. However, the assessee has furnished part information and the Assessing Officer has also called for specific information with respect to amount credited in his bank account maintained with Andhra Bank, Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 Peddamangalaram. Since, the assessee had not filed any explanation along with relevant documentary evidences, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.15,78,00,000/- u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money and also made addition on account of interest income of Rs.1,04,388/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,79,04,388/- as against NIL returned income vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not file any documentary evidences such as bank statement to prove that the credits in his bank account are not pertains to him, which is the basis for the impugned addition by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in absence of proper explanation along with relevant documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri SK Gupta along with Sri R Mohan Kumar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.15.78 crore under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards credits in bank account, even though, the total credits in the bank accounts of the assessee maintained with Union Bank of India, HDFC Bank and Axis Bank for the financial year 2013-2014 was at Rs.70,19,754/- even without providing relevant information, on the basis of which, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.15.78 crore. The learned CIT(A) without considering even the submissions of the assessee, has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that, one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee may be provided by remitting the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for reconciliaton. 9. Sri Madan Mohan Meena, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, fairly agreed that, the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 proceedings before Assessing Officer are almost ex-parte and the learned CIT(A) has not considered the submissions of the assessee. Therefore, the matter may be remitted to the file of Assessing Officer for further verification and to decide the issue in accordance with law. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.15.78 crore towards credits on the ground that, as per information available with the Department the assessee is having credits in his bank accounts during the financial year 2013-2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-2015. We find that, the Assessing Officer almost passed ex-parte assessment order and before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee could not substantiate his case. We find that, the assessee is having credits in the bank account to the tune of Rs.15.78 crore, however, the Assessing Officer did not share the information, which is the basis for the addition in the hands of the assessee and that, assessee has not got proper opportunity of hearing to Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 reconcile the credits in his bank accounts, which is evident from the orders of the lower authorities. We, therefore, deem it a fit case to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee is directed to file relevant information as and when the case is called for by the Assessing Officer to substantiate his case. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 12th September, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, H.No.8-1-332/3/67, Aziz Bagh Colony, Tolichow, Opp. Reliance Shopping Mall, Hyderabad – 500 008. Telangana. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "