SHIVASHANKAR THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -12(1), HYDERABAD

The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The assessee did not file return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17. Based on information available with the department regarding cash deposits, time deposits, salary income and interest income earned by the assessee during the relevant financial year, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and

During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. examined the information available on record with regard to the cash deposits, time deposits, interest income and salary income of the assessee. The A.O. noted that, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- in State Bank of India, time deposit of Rs.32,50,000/- in ICICI Bank, Madhapur and time deposit of Rs.28,00,000/- in State Bank of Hyderabad. The A.O. further noted that, the assessee had received interest income of Rs.3,30,993/- and salary income of Rs.24,22,139/-. Since the

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings were not received either on his registered email ID or at his physical address and, therefore, he was not aware of the assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that, due to non-receipt of the notices, the assessee could not make necessary submissions before the A.O. and explain the transactions which formed the basis of the additions made in the assessment order. The assessee also submitted that he was not provided effective

The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, observed that there was a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the assessee had claimed that, the notices issued u/s 142 were not received either through the registered email ID or at the physical address, that he was not aware of the assessment proceedings and that he had not been provided opportunity of being heard. However, according to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence to substantiate the said claims or to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), after referring to various judicial precedents relating to condonation of delay, held that the reasons furnished by the assessee were vague, general and insufficient to explain the prolonged delay of 237 days. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A.) rejected the request for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Vinod, Advocate, submitted that, there was a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. He submitted that the notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings were not received by the assessee either on his registered email ID or at his physical address and, consequently, the assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings and could not make the necessary submissions before the A.O. The learned counsel further submitted that the assessee was also not provided effective opportunity of being heard during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee could not take appropriate steps within the prescribed period for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the assessee had no benefit or advantage in delaying the filing of the appeal. The

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, on the other hand, opposed the request of the assessee for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Senior A.R. submitted that the assessee had not furnished any satisfactory explanation or supporting evidence to establish that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. He, therefore, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay and dismissing the appeal in ‘limine’. Accordingly, the learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld, and the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there is a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the

We find that, the Ld. CIT(A), instead of adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee on merits, has dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ by declining to condone the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal. In our considered view, having regard to the reasons explained by the assessee and the circumstances stated before us, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned so as to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee to contest the issues raised in the appeal on merits. However, considering the length of delay, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

Accordingly, the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the assessee to the ITAT Bar Association, Hyderabad, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No.2337/Hyd/2025 is allowed.

The present appeal filed by the assessee relates to the penalty levied by the A.O. under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.27,56,220/- in respect of the additions made in the assessment completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 26.07.2024, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and explained the circumstances which resulted in the delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, declined to condone the delay of 389 days in filing the

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, on identical set of facts for the assessment year 2016- 17 in ITA No.2337/Hyd/2025, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the ITAT Bar Association, Hyderabad, and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Since the present appeal was also dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in ‘limine’ without considering the issues raised by the assessee on merits, to give one more opportunity to the assessee, we condone the delay of 389 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the assessee to the ITAT Bar Association, Hyderabad, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.