आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1341/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Srikanth Kakati, The Income Tax Officer, KOTHAGUDEM–507 Ward-1, vs.

101. Khammam. KOTHAGUDEM.

Telangana.

PIN –507 101.

PAN CSUPK1347N Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: MS ML Niharika, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 30.05.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-2019.

2. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition/ affidavit for explaining the cause of delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal.

3. We have heard the learned AR as well as learned DR and carefully perused the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in Para nos.3 to 5 of the affidavit as under :

“3. The delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The reasons are briefly stated as under:

 The appellant is an individual taxpayer with limited knowledge of tax laws.

 The appellant was under a bona fide belief that the relief granted in part by the learned CIT(A) had resolved the major issue, and hence immediate further appeal was not warranted.

 The appellant faced difficulty in arranging proper legal assistance and collating relevant documents for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT.

 The delay is purely on account of genuine and reasonable cause, and not out of negligence or lack of diligence.

4. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delay where sufficient cause is demonstrated, so that substantial justice is not defeated on technical grounds.

5. The appellant humbly believes that he has a strong case on merits, as significant additions sustained by the learned CIT(A) are contrary to facts and law. Denial of condonation would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant.”

4. Considering the reasons explained by the assessee we are taking a lenient view to condone the delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits.

5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. “The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT-A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.13,00,000 u/s 69 as unexplained investments and Rs. 14,15,000/-u/s 69A unexplained money and Rs 2,84,093 under income from other sources by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) is bad in law and in fact.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,51,000/-

representing cash deposits, without properly appreciating the explanations and evidences furnished by the appellant; the invocation of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is erroneous and unjustified.

3. The CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,00,000/-representing time deposits made out of the appellant's explained savings of Rs. 13,00,000/-, which does not constitute unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.

4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,84,093/-

as "income from other sources", whereas the said sum constitutes business income of the appellant and ought to have been assessed under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" and not under "Income from Other Sources."

5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, or withdraw an