MALLESH YADAV POTHRABOINA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 August 2021AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal suffered from a significant delay of 263 days due to COVID-19 pandemic related lockdowns. The assessee's counsel requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits as the earlier decision was ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 24/08/2021Pronounced: 27/08/2021

O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad’s order, dated 31/01/2020 for AY 2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

2.

We notice at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 263 days delay in filing. To this effect, the assessee filed an affidavit wherein it was affirmed that due to the closure of its ld. AR due to COVID pandemic and consequent lockdown declared by the Govt. of India and the :- 2 -: Sri Mallesh Yadav Pothraboina, Hyd.

State Govt., caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that impugned delay of 263 days is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

In the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) had decided the matters ex-parte. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to his file for deciding various grounds of appeals on merits. The learned DR agreed with the aforesaid statement of the learned AR.

4.

We have considered the facts of the case and the request made by the learned AR. We are of the view that interest of justice will be served if the matter is restored to the file of first appellate authority for deciding various grounds of appeal of the assessee on merits. Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. We direct the assessee to appear before CIT(A) on or before 30 th November, 2021 with all the relevant evidences; at his own

:- 3 -: Sri Mallesh Yadav Pothraboina, Hyd. risk and responsibility to be followed by three effective opportunities of hearing.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →