SRINIVASA RAO PALABHATLA,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 293/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, an 85-year-old super senior citizen, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which upheld the addition of Rs. 13,68,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was based on unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal considered the assessee's advanced age and health issues as valid reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the decision to condone the delay and allow the appeal to be heard on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784785 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SANDHYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SM ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.293/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, Hyderabad PAN:AIUPP8507H Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 7 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Sandhya राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 04.05.2023 for the A.Y 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 571 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition and affidavit along with copies of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla Page 2 of 6 medical prescriptions, medical reports and doctor certificates, explaining the reasons for delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is a super senior citizen aged about 85 years. It was submitted that the counsel who was representing the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not handling matters before the Tribunal. Therefore, for filing the appeal before this Tribunal, the assessee had to engage another counsel. The Ld. AR further submitted that due to advanced age, the assessee was suffering from multiple age- related health issues, such as hearing problems, speaking difficulty, diabetic retinopathy affecting vision, and other ailments. Due to this, the assessee had to regularly visit multiple doctors and hospitals for treatment. The assessee has placed on record supporting medical prescriptions, treatment records, and doctor certificates, running from page numbers 1 to 18, in support of the condonation petition. It was therefore submitted that the delay has occurred solely due to old age and continuous medical illness, and not due to any deliberate or intentional act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee. It was also contended that the assessee is having business income, and therefore it cannot be presumed that he was unable to file the appeal in time. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee had also remained non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore condonation of delay should not be granted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla Page 3 of 6 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and examined the material available on record. It is observed from the computation of income (page nos. 2 & 3 of the paper book) that the assessee has not been carrying out any independent business activity and the only income shown under the head business income is the share of interest income received from a partnership firm. Thus, the objection of the Ld. DR with respect to business continuity is not factually correct. Further, the medical documents placed on record clearly show that the assessee is a senior citizen suffering from multiple age-related ailments requiring regular medical attention. The explanation for delay is reasonable, consistent and supported by documents. In such circumstances, denying condonation would amount to defeating the ends of substantial justice. Considering the advanced age of the assessee and his continuous medical illness, we are inclined to take a lenient and compassionate view. Therefore, we hold that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay. However, to balance the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to impose nominal cost. Therefore, the delay of 571 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Proof of such payment shall be filed before the Registry. Subject to such compliance, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla Page 4 of 6 2) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in deciding the appeal without providing proper opportunity. 3) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,68,000/- made by the Assessing Officer without considering the facts that the deposits do not relate to the assessee but they relate to M/S. Srinivasa Rao and Company. 4) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;.” 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.7,93,660/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). The assessee furnished copy of the return, computation of total income and bank statement during the assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits during the year amounting to Rs.13,68,000/- in the bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. However, the assessee could not explain the source of such deposits to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added Rs.13,68,000/- to the returned income of the assessee and passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 09.12.2019, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.21,61,660/-. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in the absence of submission of supporting documentary evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla Page 5 of 6 dismissed the appeal and upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish necessary details before the lower authorities, due to which the addition was made. It was submitted that the assessee is now willing to file the required documentary evidence and explain the source of the cash deposits before the Ld. AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present the case on merits before the Ld. AO. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the remand and submitted that sufficient opportunities had already been granted at earlier stages and the assessee failed to avail the same. Therefore, no further opportunity may be granted to the assessee. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the material available on record. We observe that the addition has been sustained primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish supporting evidence before the lower authorities. The assessee now seeks to furnish such evidence and explain the source of cash deposits. In view of the principle that matters should be decided on merits rather than on technical lapses, we are of the view that one more opportunity deserves to be provided to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, examine the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 293 of 2025 Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla Page 6 of 6 explanations, documents and evidence that the assessee may file in support of the source of cash deposits and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file any additional evidence and submissions before the Ld. AO. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 14th November, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Srinivasa Rao Palabhatla, 15-4-488 Akbarza Bazar, Hyderabad 500012 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1) Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "