SANJUKTA VARANASI,VISAKHAPATNAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 225/VIZ/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjukta Varanasi, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment included additions of Rs. 23,74,900 and Rs. 56,71,595 as unexplained cash deposits and credits, respectively, during the demonetization period in the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee did not file a return of income for the said year and failed to respond to several notices from the tax authorities. The Tribunal noted the assessee's health issues as a reason for the delayed appeal filing and decided to provide a final opportunity for the assessee to present her case before the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707092 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाक ृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Ramakrishna Nagar Near Jaggarao Bridge Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh [PAN:AFSPV9008E] Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Income Tax office Pratyakshakar Bhavan MVP Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri GVN Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi Page. No 2 short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068108514(1) dated 29.08.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18 arising out of the order passed under section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 26.09.2019. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order in the case of the appellant on 29.08.2024. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 28.10.2024. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 15.04.2025 resulting in a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal. 2. On 10.10.2024, the appellant fell while climbing down the staircase at her home and injured her knee. The doctor applied slab to the knee and advised her to keep the slab for 6 weeks and to take complete bed rest for 6 months. As advised the appellant was under treatment and complete rest for 6 months. Therefore, from 10.10.2024 to 10.04.2025 the appellant was not in a position to attend to any other affairs (copy of treatment record is enclosed). Hence, the appeal could not be filed immediately. As soon as the condition of the appellant improved, she took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 15.04.2025. 3. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reasons explained above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant respectfully prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the said delay of 166 days in filing the appeal and to pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.” 3. On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee and medical records as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, we find that the assessee is I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi Page. No 3 prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 166 days. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee during the demonetization period has made cash deposits into the bank account but has not filed any return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Hence, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 12.03.2018 requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. Further a letter dated 15.05.2019 was addressed to the assessee to submit the copy of the return of income filed, if any. In response to the said notice assessee neither complied with the notice nor submitted the information called for. Considering the non-compliances by the assessee, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO\"] framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 80,46,495/- under section 69A of the Act. 5. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO since assessee has not responded to any of the notice / opportunities provided to the assessee. 6. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi Page. No 4 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte. Without prejudice to the above, 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,74,900 made by the assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.56,71,595 made by the assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained credits in bank account of the appellant. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 7. Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 5 are general in nature and needs no adjudication. 8. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are with respect to sustaining the addition of Rs.23,74,900/- as unexplained cash deposits and Rs.56,71,595/- as unexplained credits in the bank account under section 69A of the Act. 9. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee. He further pleaded that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He therefore prayed for one final opportunity before Ld. CIT(A) to submit the relevant documents with respect to the cash deposits and credit entries in the bank statements. 10. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly objected to the plea of the Ld.AR and vehemently argued that the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has provided ample opportunities to the assessee as I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi Page. No 5 detailed in their respective orders. However, assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the Revenue Authorities. She therefore pleaded that the no more further opportunity should be granted and prayed of upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not fully complied with the notices before Ld. AO and has also not responded to the various notices issued to the assessee as detailed in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, considering the plea of the Ld.AR and considering the huge demand, we are of the considered view that assessee may be provided one final opportunity to substantiate the case before Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, that the assessee should cooperate with the remand proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case based on the material available on record. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are statistically allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2025. Sd/- (रिीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (एस बालाक ृष्णन) (S. BALAKRISHNAN) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10.07.2025 Giridhar, Sr.PS I.T.A.No.225/VIZ/2025 Sanjukta Varanasi Page. No 6 आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/ The Assessee : Sanjukta Varanasi D.No. 49-46-4/30 Ramakrishna Nagar Near Jaggarao Bridge Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(3) Income Tax office Pratyakshakar Bhavan MVP Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam "