LATE. SRI. RAGHUPATHI REDDY VENKANNAGIRI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIR SRI V.BANSIDHAR REDDY),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration on merits, allowing the assessee to furnish relevant evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 37 days due to the assessee's age and health issues. The assessee's counsel requested a remand of the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the case should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) – 1, Hyderabad dated 18/08/2017 for AY 2009-10. 2. On perusal of record, we find that there is a delay of 37 days in filing of this appeal and the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. As regards the reasons for the delay, it has been explained that the assessee was 70 years old and was suffering from high BP and other age related issues and was also admitted to hospital during the period in which the appeal was supposed to be filed before the Tribunal, resulting in the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Late Sri Raghupathi Reddy Venkannagiri, Hyd.
1 The ld. DR was also heard. I find that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal are reasonable. Therefore, the delay is condoned.
As far as merits of the appeal is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)’s order is ex-parte-assessee and sought remand of the appeal to the file of CIT(A) for fresh hearing and adjudication on merits.
I have gone through the order of the CIT(A) and I find that though there is a discussion on merits of the issues, the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO only because the assessee has not been able to furnish any evidence in support of his case. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is the LR of his father, and, therefore, needed some time to get relevant information and that he is ready to furnish the information now. Taking the same into consideration and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue on merits and the assessee shall be allowed to file the relevant evidence before the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for early disposal of the case. Late Sri Raghupathi Reddy Venkannagiri, Hyd.
Accordingly, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on 8th January, 2020 (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 8th January, 2020 kv
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
