MUNIVENKATAPPA UMAVATHI ,BENGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1736/BANG/2025

AI Insights

Mrs. Munivenkatappa Umavathi, a senior citizen and former employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had confirmed the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the assessment year 2017-18. The ITO had made an addition of INR 1,170,000 to the assessee's income, which was allegedly deposited during the demonetisation period, accepting only INR 381,000 as valid. The CIT A dismissed the appeal ex parte as the assessee failed to respond to three opportunities. The ITAT found that the CIT A had not considered the statement of facts provided by the assessee, which detailed the sources of the funds deposited. The ITAT noted that the CIT A's decision was made without proper consideration of the merits and directed a re-examination of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781432 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHAVENDRA M.
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1736/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2017-18 Mrs. Munivenkatappa Umavathi, 215, 8th Cross, 60 Feet Road, BHEL Layout, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 098. PAN: ADKPU 5798E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Raghavendra M., CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Date of hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by Mrs. Munivenkatappa Umavathi (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 05/02/2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) / of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 23.11.2019 by the ITO, Ward 3(2)(2, Bangalore [ld. AO] was dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1736/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 2. This appeal is filed by the assessee on 4.8.2025 whereas the order of the learned CIT – A was received by the assessee on 5.2.2025 thereby causing delay of 96 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay and affidavit supporting the same. The claim of the assessee is that assessee is a senior citizen, was undergoing medical treatment. Due to old age and continued ill-health she was in a state of mental confusion and indecision which adversely impacted her ability to initiate timely legal recourse. After partial recovery, and on advice of legal adviser she was able to understand the implication of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT – A ex parte. Thereafter, she filed appeal immediately. Thus the delay was caused which is for sufficient reason and may be condoned. 3. The learned authorised representative reiterated the above facts, the learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same that sufficient cause is not shown. 4. We have carefully considered the rival contention and find that the appeal delayed by 96 days, same is because of sufficient reason of ill- health of the assessee, old-age, continued medical treatment. The delay is small, for bona fide reasons, we condone delay and admit the appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case show that assessee she is an individual and was in employment with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd retired in 2012. She filed return of income on 7.3.2018 showing total income of Rs 2,76,920 comprising of pension and income from other sources. This Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1736/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 5 return was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143 (2) was issued. 6. It was found that during the demonetisation period the assessee has deposited the sum of ₹ 1,551,000 and therefore the learned assessing officer asked for various information. Assessee submitted a detailed explanation for the deposit stating that the previously withdrawn cash amount is deposited into the designated bank account. Further clarification was sought for. Ultimately assessee explained that cash was withdrawn from banks for the purpose of daughter’s marriage on 23rd April 2015 but finally marriage was conducted at a temple due to nonavailability of hall. Ultimately the money withdrawn for the purpose of marriage was not spent and same was deposited in the bank account. The learned assessing officer made addition of ₹ 1,170,000, accepting only ₹ 381,000 as valid, passed an assessment order on 23 November 2019 assessing the total income at ₹ 14,46,920/–. 7. Assessee preferred before the learned CIT – A. Three opportunities were given, which were not responded to by the assessee and therefore the appeal of the assessee was disposed of ex parte confirming the action of the learned AO. Against this appellate order assessee is in appeal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. We find that though the learned CIT – A has disposed of the appeal of the assessee ex parte, however the statement of facts were also not considered. In the statement of the facts the assessee has specifically stated the reasons and the source of the funds which Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1736/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 5 were deposited in the bank account. In the assessment proceedings also in paragraph number 3 the assessee has given the details that the amounts were drawn from Punjab National Bank, Janta Seva cooperative bank Ltd, HDFC bank Limited. This clearly shows that the withdrawal by the assessee from her bank accounts are the source of cash deposit in the same bank accounts. The assessee has submitted the bank passbooks for the evidence of the withdrawal. The finding of the learned CIT was also missing on paragraph number 6.2 of the assessment order wherein without finding any evidence the explanation of the assessee was rejected on surmises and conjunctures. There cannot be any reason that the earlier withdrawal made by the assessee should not be considered as source of the funds deposited in the bank account subsequently unless there are other evidence available which suggests that the assessee has spent that money for any other purposes. Though the order of the learned CIT – A is ex parte, but it should be on the merits of the case. The learned CITA appeal has failed to give his own reasons. In view of the above facts the order of the learned CIT – A is not sustainable. 9. Accordingly we restore the whole appeal back to the file of the learned CIT – A with a direction to the assessee to submit the explanation and the learned CIT – A after considering the explanation of the assessee or any other further evidences produced before him, decide the appeal of the assessee on its own merit after granting an opportunity of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1736/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 5 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of September, 2025. Sd/- ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 29th September, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "