ALLAM VENKATESWARLU,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD -1, KURNOOL

PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by Shri Allam Venkateswarlu (“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 24.08.2023 for the A.Y. 2013-14.

:: 2 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU retired police constable. It has been submitted that due to old-age related medical issues and lack of familiarity with online income-tax proceedings, the assessee was entirely dependent upon his tax practitioner for handling his income-tax matters. It has further been submitted that the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) were also being handled by the said practitioner and, after passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A), the same was not communicated to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee remained under the bona fide belief that his matter was being attended to by his representative. According to the assessee, only when recovery proceedings were initiated by the Department did he approach the practitioner and come to know that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) had already been dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee immediately engaged a new counsel at Hyderabad and took steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) also submitted that the assessee has a very good case on merits. He submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) has made an addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on account of cash deposits amounting to ₹1,93,61,100/-, whereas according to the assessee, the actual cash deposited during the relevant year was only ₹48,34,400/-. It has also been submitted that the Ld. AO has brought to tax the sale consideration of an immovable property without granting deduction towards the cost of acquisition. Therefore, it was submitted that if the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on the technical grounds, the assessee will suffer from substantial financial loss. Accordingly, the Ld. AR

:: 3 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU prayed before the Bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the

appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) has opposed

the condonation petition by contending that the assessee had failed to comply with

the notices issued during the reassessment proceedings, there was a delay of 152

days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and there is a further delay of 799 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. According to the Revenue, the

conduct of the assessee demonstrates negligence and, therefore, no sufficient cause

has been shown for condonation of delay. Accordingly, it was argued that the appeal

of the assessee needs to be dismissed on ground of limitation.

record. After considering the same, we are of the considered view that the delay

deserves to be condoned. It is a settled principle of law that while considering a

petition for condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted where the

explanation furnished by the litigant appears to be bona fide and where substantial

justice would be advanced by condoning the delay. In the present case, the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 66 years and is a retired police constable. The

explanation that he was dependent upon his tax practitioner for handling the

appellate proceedings and that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not brought to his

notice by the said practitioner cannot be said to be inherently improbable. We also find force in the contention of the assessee that immediately after coming to know

:: 4 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU about the dismissal of the appeal during the course of recovery proceedings, he changed his counsel and took steps for filing the present appeal. We further note that the assessee has placed on record circumstances indicating that the delay was not deliberate or intentional but occurred on account of lack of communication between the counsel and the assessee. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Therefore, respectfully following the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and looking to the age of the assessee, his age-related medical issues, and the fact that he is not well-versed with electronic income-tax proceedings, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

:: 5 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU adjudication. Therefore, denying the assessee an opportunity of hearing on merits

merely on technical grounds may result in substantial injustice.

the age of the assessee, his age-related medical problems, his dependence upon the

tax practitioner, the lack of communication regarding the passing of the order of the

Ld. CIT(A), the fact that the assessee took immediate steps after becoming aware of

the dismissal of the appeal during recovery proceedings, and also keeping in view

the arguable merits involved in the appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has

been shown for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, in the interest of

substantial justice, we condone the delay of 799 days in filing the present appeal and

admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. However, considering the substantial delay involved, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of ₹25,000/- upon the

assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit ₹25,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within

30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

1) The order passed by The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC is against the facts and circumstances of the Appellant case and is contrary to the provisions of Income tax Act, 1961. 2) The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs.1,93,61,100 made by the Learned Assessing officer which is arrived by considering the actual addition amount multiple times. Hence, consideration of multiple values ought to have been deleted

:: 6 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU

3) The Honourable Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), NFAC is unjustified in not appreciating the fact that Learned Assessing officer erred in considering the entire sale consideration as capital gains on transfer of Immovable property, without allowing any amount towards cost of acquisition. Hence, the deduction towards cost of acquisition ought to have been allowed. 4) The Honourable Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) , NFAC is unjustified in not appreciating the fact that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind and without forming a definite and rational belief as to the income alleged to have escaped assessment. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed 5) The Honourable Commissioner of Income tax Appeals, NFAC is unjustified in dismissing the appeal solely by refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal, despite the delay having occurred due to bona fide and reasonable cause beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, the dismissal of appeal is against the principles of natural Justice. 6) The Appellant craves to add, alter and amend the above grounds of appeal.

Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147

read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act dated 25.03.2022. However, there was a

delay of 152 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had filed

a petition seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld.

CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and

accordingly declined to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee

was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

:: 7 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU

is not well acquainted with income-tax proceedings conducted through electronic

mode. Inviting our attention to the condonation petition and affidavit filed before

the lower authorities, the Ld. AR submitted that during the period when the assessee was in service, the e-mail ID registered on the income-tax portal belonged to a person

working in the accounts department. It was submitted that the said person expired

during the Covid period. Consequently, the notices issued by the Ld. AO during the

reassessment proceedings could not come to the knowledge of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee was not aware of the reassessment proceedings,

he could not participate in the proceedings before the Ld. AO. It was further

submitted that only upon receipt of demand recovery notices and penalty notices

from the Department did the assessee come to know about the ex parte assessment

order passed by the Ld. AO. Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a tax

consultant and took steps to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore,

according to the Ld. AR, there was no deliberate intention or negligence on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR

further submitted that the assessment itself was completed ex parte and the assessee

could not furnish the necessary documentary evidences and explanations before the

Ld. AO. Therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case on merits. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay in

:: 8 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the matter may be

restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication.

Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to file the appeal within the statutory period

prescribed under the Act. According to the Ld. DR, no reasonable and sufficient cause was shown by the assessee for condonation of the delay of 152 days. It was

further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished

by the assessee, rightly declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.

record. The preliminary issue arising for our consideration is whether the delay of

152 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. The

explanation offered by the assessee is that he is a retired police constable and is not

conversant with the electronic mode of income-tax proceedings. It has been submitted that the e-mail ID registered on the income-tax portal was being monitored

by a person working in the accounts department during the service tenure of the

assessee and that the said person expired during the Covid period. Consequently, the

notices issued by the Department during the reassessment proceedings could not come to the knowledge of the assessee. The assessee has further explained that he

:: 9 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU came to know about the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment

order only when recovery notices and penalty notices were issued by the Department. Thereafter, he immediately approached a tax consultant and filed the

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the totality of facts and

circumstances of the case, we find that the explanation furnished by the assessee is

plausible and constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There is nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate or

attributable to any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. Further, we find

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174

taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. Accordingly, in

the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 152 days in filing the

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

assessment itself was completed ex parte under section 147 read with sections 144

and 144B of the Act. Consequently, the assessee did not get an effective opportunity

to place on record the documentary evidences and submissions in support of his claims before the Ld. AO. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that he

could not substantiate his case before the Ld. AO with supporting evidences due to

non-receipt of notices. Since the assessment was framed ex parte and the issues

involved in the assessment require examination of facts and evidences, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for

:: 10 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)

and the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity

of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the issues afresh in accordance

with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all documentary evidences,

explanations and submissions in support of his claims before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO shall duly consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order in

accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during

the reassessment proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. In

the event of non-cooperation by the assessee, the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law based on the material available on record.

Sd/- Sd/- RAVISH SOOD MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad Dated: 24th July, 2026. TLN

:: 11 :: ITA No.37/Hyd/2026 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU

Copy to:

1 ALLAM VENKATESWARLU, 87/1285-6-37-A SOMISETTY NAGAR, KURNOOL-518002, ANDHRA PRADESH 2 ITO, WARD -1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, OPP CHILDRENS PARK, NRPET, KURNOOL-518001, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, KURNOOL 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH 5 GUARD FILE