DEVIREDDY VENU GOPAL REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), HYDERABAD

Succinctly stated, the AO based on information gathered from Insight Portal in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, viz., (i) foreign remittance through ICICI Bank Limited: Rs.38,37,863/-; (ii) cash deposits in bank account with ICICI Bank Limited: 62,40,000/-; (iii) payment made to non- residents (ICICI Bank Limited): Rs.5,675/-; (iv) payment made to non-residents (Axis Bank Limited): Rs.178/-; (v) aggregate amount debited in cash with ICICI Bank Limited: Rs.39,14,500/-; and (vi) aggregate amount debited in bank account in cash with ICICI Bank Limited: Rs.52,85,000/-, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30/03/2024. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2024 was issued to the assessee.

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 19/03/2025 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.2,98,96,175/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee had delayed in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 43 days, the latter not finding favour with the explanation of the assessee regarding the reasons leading to the delay, dismissed the appeal by declining to exercise the discretion vested with him under section 249(3) of the Act.

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 lower authorities and the material available on record.

Shri Satish Kumar, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted hat the assessee is physically handicapped suffering from Polio, i.e., 40% permanent disability. The Ld. AR to substantiate his contention had placed on record a certificate of Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, dated 03/03/2000. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee during the relevant period had suffered an accident on 25/02/2025 resulting in musculoskeletal complications and mobility issues and was advised to bed rest and physiotherapy sessions to support rehabilitation and recovery. The Ld. AR to support his aforesaid contention had taken us through the copy of the Medical Certificate of The Parklane Hospitals, dated 25/02/2025. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the delay of 43 days in filing of the present appeal had crept in because of the aforesaid compelling reasons and not on account of any lackadaisical approach of the assessee, the CIT(A) in all fairness ought to have been condoned the delay instead of summarily dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.

Per contra, Shri Mohan Babu, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below.

As is discernible from the record, we find that the assessee, who is a physically handicapped had during relevant period, i.e., 25/02/2025 suffered an accident which had resulted in musculoskeletal complications and mobility issues, as can be gathered from the Medical Certificate. The assessee was thereafter advised complete bed rest and undertaken physiotherapy cessions to support the rehabilitation and the recovery. In our view, the CIT(A) taking cognizance of the ill-health of the assessee ought to have adopted a reasonable approach and condone the delay of 43 days involved in the appeal before him in exercise of discretion vested with him under section 249(3) of the Act.

We thus, not being able to persuade ourselves to the summarily dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on the ground of limitation, set aside his order and restored the appeal to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order of assessment has been assailed by the assessee appellant before him.

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