RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1139/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramulu Bandi, a pensioner, who appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues were the additions made to his income due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and the penalties imposed for non-compliance with notices under the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed Bandi's appeals due to significant delays in filing, which the Tribunal also found unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals and upheld the penalties and additions made by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46422 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SM-A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. NAVEEN KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G. HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1126, 1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year – 2017-18 Ramulu Bandi, R/o. Ibrahimpatnam. Hyderabad, Telangana. PAN : BOCPB2426J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri B. Naveen Kumar, Sr.A.R. (appeared through Virtual Mode) Date of hearing: 27.11.2024 Date of pronouncement: 27.11.2024 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. The appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 30.08.2024, for the assessment year 2017-18. 2 Ramulu Bandi 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a pensioner, e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 28.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,20,450/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to examine the cash deposits during demonetization period. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dt. 31.08.2019 was issued calling for certain details regarding bank account, explanation for source for cash deposits etc. The assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer obtained bank account details of the assessee from Canara Bank u/s 133(6) of the Act and observed that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.28,51,965/- during the demonstration period. Since the assessee could not explain the source for cash deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.28,51,965/- u/s 69A of the Act and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 272AAAC(1) of the Act and passed order imposing penalty of Rs.2,20,314/- which is 10% of the tax payable u/s 115BBE(1) of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A(1)(d) for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) / 142(3) of the Act and since the assessee has not submitted any explanation for non-compliance, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 Ramulu Bandi 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeals before the LD.CIT(A) against the assessment order and penalty orders and such appeals had been filed with a delay of 317 to 1059 days. The LD.CIT(A) after considering the relevant reasons given by the appellant for not filing the appeals in time, rejected the explanation of the assessee and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant without condoning the delay in filing the appeals. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of LD.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared for the assessee. 6. We have heard the ld.DR and perused the relevant orders passed by the LD.CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash deposits during the demonetization period u/s 69A of the Act and consequent penalty levied u/s 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that the appellant has filed appeals before the first appellate authority with a delay of 317 to 1051 days. The appellant has given the reasons for not filing the appeals in time before the LD.CIT(A) and the appellant has contended that, he was aged about 70 years, and has no access to verify the email and 4 Ramulu Bandi has also no information that the notices are being sent by the department and therefore, could not ascertain the information regarding the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and orders passed, however, he had realized when the Assessing Officer issued notice for collection of outstanding demand. Therefore, immediately, took steps to file the appeals, which caused delay and however, the said delay is neither intentional nor for want of any undue benefit. The LD.CIT(A) did not convince with the explanation furnished by the assessee and accordingly, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeals. Even before us, the assessee neither appeared nor explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the LD.CIT(A). Further, on perusal, the reasons given by the appellant before the LD.CIT(A) for not filing the appeals before the due date, in our considered view, the said reasons do not come under the ‘reasonable cause’ as provided under the Act, for condonation of delay. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we have to consider that there is no error in the reasons given by the LD.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeals. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the orders of the LD.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. 5 Ramulu Bandi 7. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANJUNATHA G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 27.11.2024. TYNM/sps S/- Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Ramulu Bandi, Mar-47, BJR Nagar, Ibrahimpatnam – 501506, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Hyderabad. 3 Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "