SANDEEP PERNETI,NELLORE V. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

ITA 226/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Perneti, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) regarding an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 to his income, classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITO had initiated proceedings under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148, following which the assessee failed to provide necessary details about the source of the loan advanced to Smt. Sireesha Pochareddy. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision after the assessee failed to participate in the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay in filing and lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708637 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Recovery proceedings; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SM-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.226/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sandeep Perneti, R/o.Nellore. PAN : CKOPP4300E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Gudur. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. (Appeared through HYBRID mode) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Pavitran Kumar J. Sr.DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.10.224, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing 2 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore Officer (for short “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 10.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “(i) The order of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) is erroneous, is contrary to law, principles of natural justice and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case. Unexplained Money u/s 69A-Loan advanced to Agriculturist- Rs.12,00,000/- (ii).The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the Appellant had already explained the sources for the income vide his letter dated 08/03/2021 and 06/01/2022 to the AO. (iii). The Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to recognize that the Appellant has been in farming business for decades and his accumulated savings and other receivables collected, is the source for the money advanced. No Addition u/s 69A when Recorded in Books of Accounts: (iv) The Learned AO/CIT(A) ought to have noted that he Appellant has duly reported all the transactions and monies advanced clearly in the books of accounts. (v) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has ought to have noted that no addition can be made u/s 69 when the monies, jewellery or valuables have been properly recorded in the books of account. (vi) The Entire addition is void and ought to be quashed. (vii) Any other grounds as may be raised during the course of the hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O., based on information that though the assessee had claimed to have advanced an unsecured cash loan to Smt. Sireesha Pochareddy, but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, initiated proceedings 3 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he had advanced a cash loan of Rs. 12 lacs to Smt. Sireesha Pochareddy. Also, it was submitted by him that he had filed his return of income for the subject year on 19.04.2021. 4. The A.O. issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 10.03.2022, calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details, viz. (i). source of income; (ii). copy of profit and loss account, balance sheet, audit report; (iii). computation of total income; and (iv) copy of the bank accounts along with the source from where the cash loan of Rs. 12 lacs was advanced during the subject year to Smt. Sireesha Pochareddy. As the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details, therefore, the A.O. held the cash loan of Rs. 12 lacs (supra), as having been sourced out of the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O., vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 15,62,360/-. 4 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 6. As the assessee, despite sufficient opportunity, had failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, therefore, the CIT(A), held a firm conviction that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and disposed of the same on merits based on the material available on record. 7. The CIT(A), after referring to the observations of the A.O., held a firm conviction that, in the absence of any documentary evidence, there was no substance in the explanation of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held the order passed by the A.O. as well-reasoned and dismissed the appeal. 8. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 5 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore 10. Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A., the learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 66 days. Elaborating on the reason leading to the delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that as the Chartered Accountant, who was earlier handling the case, had left the job without handing over to the assessee the relevant papers, therefore, the latter had remained oblivion about the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) till the date of initiation of recovery proceedings in his case. The Ld. AR submitted that it was only when the assessee had approached the present counsel, viz. M/s. Victor Grace & Co., Chartered Accountant that the appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which, by the time involved delay of 66 days. 11. The Ld. AR to buttress his claim had filed before an “affidavit”, dated 05.02.2025 of the assessee. 12. Before proceeding any further, we deem it apposite to cull out the “affidavit”, dated 05.02.2025 filed by the assessee before 6 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore us, based on which he has sought for condonation of the delay of 66 days involved in the present appeal filed before us: 7 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore 13. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid “affidavit”, we find that though the same at Para 4 makes a reference of filing of the appeal by the assessee on 13.02.2025, resulting in a delay of 66 days, but interestingly, the said “affidavit” is found to be notarized by 8 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore one Shri K. Subbarao, B.A. B.L., Advocate & Notary [G.O.Ms.No.509/2012, 11/99, Gamallapalem, Guntur – 524101, Tirupati Dist. (A.P.)] on 05.02.2025. 14. We find it incomprehensible that when the “affidavit” at Para 4 itself refers to the date of filing of the appeal by the assessee as 13.02.2025, then, how the same have been signed by the assessee and also notarized by the aforementioned notary on 05.02.2025. The Ld. A.R on being confronted with the aforesaid serious discrepancy failed to come forth with any explanation. Rather, the Ld. AR submitted that some further time be allowed so that a fresh “affidavit” may be filed. 15. We are unable to fathom the conduct of the assessee. As the assessee has sought for the condonation of the delay involved in the filing of the present appeal based upon the aforesaid bogus document i.e “affidavit”, and thus, had not come with clean hands explaining the bona fide reason resulting to the delay in filing of the present appeal, therefore, we are constrained to decline the same. 9 ITA No.226/Hyd/2025 Sandeep Perneti, Nellore 16. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are constrained to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as barred by limitation. 17. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th July, 2025. Sd/- (श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 18.07.2025. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Sandeep Perneti, 13-104, Upstairs Sivasakti Showroom, CVC Park, Gudur – 524101, Nellore. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Gudur. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nellore. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad "