CHELLA KRISHNA VANI,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 days. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the time taken to gather old documents and prepare a cash flow statement.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay of 17 days was not deliberate and was properly explained. Following a liberal approach towards condonation of delay, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal further held that the dismissal by the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits denied the assessee an effective opportunity to present her case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter should be restored for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
69A, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.2145/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Chella Krishna Vani Vs. Income Tax Officer NIZAMABAD Ward 1 PAN:CBCPK5957R Nizamabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Villa Mouli Mani Kumar, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/03/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Smt. Chella Krishna Vani, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16.09.2025 for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in treating cash deposits of Rs.62,81,719 as unexplained u/s 69A. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without appreciating the factual cash-flow trail and availability of cash withdrawals.
The authorities failed to apply the Peak Credit Theory in spite of established rotation of funds. 4. The authorities erred in ignoring documentary evidence, affidavits, remittances, agricultural income receipts, and FD maturity details. 5. Without prejudice, only the peak credit could be considered. 6. The order is bad in law and facts.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for the Assessment Year 2016–17 under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 24.03.2022. There was a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was contended that the assessee was required to collect various documents for the purpose of filing the appeal, such as bank statements, agricultural income confirmations, family remittance documents, statements from daughters and brother, confirmation of hand loan pertaining to late Shri Nagi Reddy, and preparation of a consolidated cash flow statement in Excel form. The Ld. AR submitted that since these documents pertained to old year, it took considerable time for the assessee to gather and compile the same, which resulted in a marginal delay of 17 days. It was further submitted that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the
assessee in causing such delay. The Ld. AR further contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby depriving the assessee of an opportunity to present her case. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR fairly submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to appropriate directions to the assessee to cooperate in the appellate proceedings. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue before us is whether the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned and whether the matter should be restored for adjudication on merits. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee, and on perusal of the same, we find that the delay has occurred due to the time taken in collecting various supporting documents relating to earlier years, including bank statements, agricultural income confirmations, family remittance records, and preparation of consolidated cash flow statements. Considering the nature of documents and the explanation furnished, we find that the delay is properly explained and does not appear to be deliberate or mala fide. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay.
Respectfully following the said principle, we condone the delay of 17 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). We further find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. In our considered opinion, such dismissal has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity to the assessee to prosecute her case. Principles of natural justice require that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity to present her case and the issues should be decided on merits. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A). The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issues on merits, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, dated 30th March, 2026. Vinodan/sps
Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. CHELLA KRISHNA VANI 1 4 307 SHARBATHI CANAL ROAD BOODHAN AT BOODHAN NIZAMABAD 503185 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Nizamabad 503185 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.03.30 RAO 12:25:32 +05'30'
