VENKATESH KAMMARI,CHEVELLA V. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

ITA 465/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Venkatesh Kammari, an agriculturist, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2019-2020. The Assessing Officer noted substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts and reopened the assessment, leading to an ex-parte assessment order determining the assessee's income at Rs.49,08,618. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay in filing without a condonation petition. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's ill-health as a reason for the delay, supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal thus condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705617 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WASEEM UR REHMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K P BINDU
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Venkatesh Kammari, CHEVELLA – 501 503. Ranga Reddy District. PAN ARTPK5662L vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, VIKARABAD. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA K P Bindu For Revenue : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.02.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, the assessee is an individual, agriculturist and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2019-2020. As per the 2 ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 information available with the Assessing Officer, it was noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.34,24,118/- in the bank a/c. no.xxxx3201 maintained with Andhra Bank and deposited cash amounting to Rs.11,19,500/- in the bank a/c. no.xxxx1712 maintained with Axis Bank during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2019-2020. The assessee has also furnished Form of Declaration to be filed by a person who has agricultural income and is not in receipt of any other income chargeable to income tax in respect of transactions specified in Rule 114B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In the Form the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.3,65,000/-. Therefore, the assessment has been reopened and notice u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] was issued after duly complying with the relevant procedure provided u/sec.148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not file any return of income. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.142(1) and show cause notice u/sec.144 of the Act on various dates, but, there were no compliance from the assessee. 3 ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed his best Judgment ex-parte assessment order u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.49,08,618/- and made additions towards cash deposited into two bank accounts. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) and such appeal has been filed on 13.04.2024 with a delay of 28 days. The assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay. The learned CIT(A) has issued letter dated 03.02.025 and called-upon the assessee to file petition and also explain reasons. The assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine for delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA K P Bindu, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing 4 ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 the appeal filed by the assessee in limine for delay in filing of the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. She further submitted that, although, there is a delay of less than 30 days in filing of the appeal, but, the said delay is because of ill-health of the assessee and this fact has been explained in Form No.35 filed before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant explanation, simply dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, she submitted that, delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer to give another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain his case in the interest of substantial justice. 6. Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, when the assessee is not able to explain the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal, the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal in limine and also upheld the additions made towards cash deposited 5 ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 in two bank accounts. Therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte was in terms of sec.144(1) of the Act and the Assessing Officer has passed order on 15.02.2024. The assessee has filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 13.04.2024 with a delay of 28 days. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal and according to the reasons given by the assessee, he was ill at the time the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order and for this purpose he has filed Medical Certificate from the Doctor. In our considered view, going by the number of 28 days of delay and the reasons given by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condone the delay in filing of the appeal. Since the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine, even though there is a valid reason for the assessee for not filing the appeal, in our considered view, the delay in filing the appeal before the 6 ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 learned CIT(A) should be condoned. Thus, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). 8. Having said so, let us come back to the issue on merit. Admittedly, the assessee has made cash deposit into two bank accounts and has not explained the source before the Assessing Officer, which is evident from the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not get an opportunity to explain his case with relevant evidences. Since the assessment order itself is ex-parte and further, the assessee claims that he does not have any income which is taxable under the Act, except agricultural income, in our considered view, the matter needs to go back to the file of Assessing Officer. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re-decide the issue afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7 ITA.No.465/Hyd./2025 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] [MANJUNATHA G] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 30th June, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Mr. Venkatesh Kammari, 2-62, CHEVELLA – 501 503. Ranga Reddy District. Telangana. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, VIKARABAD. 3. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle, Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “B” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// "