BABITHA DEVI AGARWAL,HYDEARABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1909/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 August 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay based on the assessee's explanation and a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedent. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 148 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to unfamiliarity with online procedures and only became aware of the assessment order when recovery proceedings were initiated.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned. Whether the appeal should be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 27/07/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘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. 1909/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Smt. Babitha Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer Agarwal Ward 15(1) HYDERABAD Hyderabad PAN: AYXPB9046Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Shri P Murali Mohan Rao राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Smt. Babitha Devi Agarwal (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 29.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23 before the Ld. CIT (A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 16.03.2024. However, there was a delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is not conversant with online communication and the Income-tax portal. Consequently, the assessee could not come to know about the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. It was submitted that the assessee became aware of the assessment order only when the Revenue initiated recovery proceedings and communicated the outstanding demand to the assessee. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took necessary steps to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). It was, therefore, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide circumstances. The Ld. AR, placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), prayed that the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) may be condoned. 5. It was further submitted that since the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the ground of limitation, the assessee could not prosecute the appeal on merits by

producing the relevant documents and evidences in support of its claim. Accordingly, it was prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for adjudication on merits. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 148 days. It was, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case law relied upon. We find that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) is 148 days. The explanation furnished by the assessee is that the assessee was not acquainted with online communication and the Income-tax portal and, therefore, could not become aware of the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. It is only upon initiation of recovery proceedings by the Revenue that the assessee came to know about the assessment order and thereafter took immediate steps to file the appeal. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (Supra), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) deserves to be condoned.

8.

Since the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground of limitation without examining the issues on merits, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for adjudication of the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all such documentary evidence and submissions as may be necessary in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) shall afford adequate and effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 5th August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 5th August, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. Babitha Devi Agarwal, C/o P Murali & Co, C.As, 6-3- 655/2/3 Somajiguda, Hyderabad 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-5(1), Hyderabad 500028 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order TUMMALACHARLA Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.08.05 14:32:46 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →