SRINIVASARAO KOLASANI,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 433/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)), which had dismissed his appeal for non-prosecution regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs.30,54,255 as unexplained money, attributed to cash deposits during the demonetization period, which the assessee failed to substantiate. The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the assessee's medical conditions, and after reviewing the circumstances, decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780108 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SNSR CHINMAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.433/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, Hyderabad. PAN: AHWPK6333P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: SNSR Chinmai, Adv. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 26.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed on 15.02.2019 declaring total income of Rs.4,76,020/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 21.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.433/Hyd/2025 2 Act”) assessing the total income at Rs.35,30,275/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposited in the bank account during demonetization period of Rs.30,54,255/- as unexplained money as the assessee failed to explain the sources of cash deposits with supporting evidences. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in limine. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 436 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an Affidavit seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of the fact that the assessee was undergoing physiotherapy, treatment for Cervical Traction and Neck & Shoulder exercises which led to the Haemorrhoids and surgery of Hemorrhoidec at Pavan Sai Hospital on 8.2.2025 and discharged after surgery on 10.02.2025. The assessee filed medical prescriptions and medical certificate Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.433/Hyd/2025 3 along with Affidavit. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, having regard to the averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay is a fit case to condone the delay of 436 days. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 436 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A), is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 279 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position I am of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.433/Hyd/2025 4 novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th Oct., 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 08.10.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Srinivasa Rao Kolasani, 1-5-209, Road No.3, New Maruthi NGAR, Kothapet-500035 Telangana. 2. The ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "