RAJAN BABU VEMULA,SECUNDRABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, HYDERABAD

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 12/03/2024, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.32,81,086/- after making certain additions, viz., (i) unexplained cash deposits in assessee’s bank account maintained with State Bank of India: Rs.2,07,000/-; (ii) unexplained cash deposits in assessee’s bank account maintained with AP State Cooperative Bank Account: Rs.10,00,000/-; (iii) unexplained cash deposits made with State Bank of India: Rs.20,68,086/-; and (iv) unexplained time deposits with Telangana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd: Rs.10,00,000/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by a period of 74 days, the latter, not finding favor with his explanation regarding the reason leading to the delay, dismissed the appeal in limine.

The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.

We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR for the assessee appellant to drive home his contention.

Shri K. Srinivas, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in summarily dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without considering the justifiable reason leading to the said delay. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that, as the assessee was in the USA at the relevant time and had returned to India on 13/04/2024, and thereafter was taken unwell due to age-related problems, the said reasons resulted in the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee had in “Form-35” submitted before the CIT(A) the aforesaid reasons leading to the delay, he had, without considering the bona fides relating to the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the same. The Ld.

Per contra, Shri Mohan Babu, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted that as the assessee had no justifiable reason for delaying the filing of the appeal, the same had rightly been dismissed by the CIT(A).

We have given thoughtful consideration and have considered the reasons leading to the delay of 74 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), viz., (i) that the assessee at the relevant point of time was in the USA and had returned to India on 13/04/2024; and (ii) thereafter the assessee was taken unwell due to an age-related problem. In our view, the CIT(A), considering the aforesaid reasons leading to the delay involved in the appeal before him, ought to have taken a liberal approach and condoned the delay. Our aforesaid view that a justice- oriented and liberal approach should be adopted by an appellate authority is supported by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 83 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, had observed that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal.

We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and dispose of the appeal on the specific grounds based on which the impugned order of the assessment has been assailed before him. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall, in the course of the set aside proceedings, afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.