RAJESHWARI MADDI,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 72/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajeshwari Maddi, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) sustaining additions made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2017-2018. The additions were made due to unexplained cash deposits of Rs.10,15,000 during the demonetization period, which were significantly higher than her declared income. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or appear at multiple hearings, leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' decisions and dismissed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474844 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SM-B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH BABU KN

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA.No.72/Hyd./2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “SM-B” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.72/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Rajeshwari Maddi, Hyderabad – 500 020. PAN CTIPM9854K vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 30.11.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,15,000/-. The case of the 2 ITA.No.72/Hyd./2025 assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS on account of huge cash deposit of Rs.10,15,000/- during demonetization period as compared to her returned income. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) of the Act on 24.09.2018 and notice u/sec.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act’] on 16.07.2018, 13.08.2019 and 09.11.2019 calling the assessee to furnish relevant information. In response thereto, the assessee submitted her explanation stating that the cash deposits made into bank account are out of tuition fees and out of her savings from income from previous years. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has deposited cash in State Bank of India, Vidyanagar Branch, Hyderabad right from 30.04.2016 to 13.11.2016 totalling to a sum of Rs.10,15,000/-. Despite issuance of show cause notice u/sec.144 of the Act, the assessee did not respond to file her explanation. Therefore, in absence of any explanation from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,34,543/- by making addition on account of 3 ITA.No.72/Hyd./2025 unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act at Rs.10,15,000/- and interest from savings bank account under the head ‘Income from other sources’ of Rs.4,543/- vide order dated 07.12.2019 passed u/sec.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details which is evident from the order of the learned CIT(A) where the learned CIT(A) has given three opportunities of hearing on 24.12.2020, 25.09.2023 and 19.11.2024. Further, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) passed ex- parte appellate order for want of prosecution and sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposit and interest earned on SB account. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. We, therefore, proceed 4 ITA.No.72/Hyd./2025 to decide the appeal on merits, after hearing the Learned DR. 5. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the relevant material available on record. We find that the assessee is a non-cooperative at all stages of proceedings which is evident from the ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). Even before us, the assessee did not appear nor filed any evidence to substantiate her case and explain the source of cash deposits. We are, therefore, of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) in his order while sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits made in the bank account and interest income earned on SB account. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5 ITA.No.72/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 12th March, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Rajeshwari Maddi, 1-9-1113/27F/267, Nagamaiah Kunta, VST Road, Azamabad, Hyderabad – 500 020. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “SM-B” Bench, Hyderabad 5. Guard File //By Order// //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary : ITAT : Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad. "