BOREDDY PRABHAKARA REDDY,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

At the outset, there is a delay of 104 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri D. Bhargava, C.A., referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, dated 21.08.2025, was communicated to the assessee on the same day and the appeal against the said order was required to be filed on or before 31.10.2025. However, the appeal came to be filed on 12.02.2026, resulting in a delay of 104 days.

It was further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred due to unavoidable medical emergencies in the family. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee's sister, Smt. Kadiri Rajyalakshmi, who is medically dependent upon the assessee, was suffering from serious cardiac ailments and had also suffered an acute ischemic stroke, requiring hospitalization and continuous medical treatment during the relevant period. It was submitted that the assessee, being the primary caregiver and financial supporter of his sister, was fully occupied in arranging

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, on the other hand, opposed the condonation petition filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period and, therefore, the delay may not be condoned. However, he fairly submitted that the issue may be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the facts and material available on record.

We have heard both the parties, perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 104

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under consideration, he filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.3,01,680/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pursuant to the procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act. Since the assessee did not file the return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, and also failed to comply with the various notices issued under section 142(1) and show cause

During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that, as per the information available with the Department, the assessee was one of the beneficiary dealers of M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. and had received freebies in the form of foreign/local tour and travel packages valued at Rs.3,71,367/-. According to the A.O., the assessee had not offered the value of the said freebies to tax in the return of income. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or supporting details despite being afforded various opportunities, the A.O. treated the value of freebies received from M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. as business income under section 28(iv) of the Act and completed the reassessment by making an addition of Rs.3,71,367/- to the returned income.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 187 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee failed to file any petition seeking condonation of delay along with Form No.35 and also did not furnish any valid explanation for the delay during the course of appellate

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

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri D. Bhargava, C.A., submitted that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was neither wilful nor deliberate but had occurred due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the counsel who was handling the matter before the A.O. He further submitted that immediately after noticing the said mistake, the assessee had taken necessary steps and pursued the appeal. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same as time-barred.

The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the addition made by the A.O. under section 28(iv) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is factually incorrect. He submitted that the assessee was never a beneficiary of any freebies alleged to have 7 been distributed by M/s. Asian Paints Limited. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the assessee filed additional evidence, including a confirmation issued by M/s. Asian Paints Limited, to establish that the assessee's name does not figure in the list of beneficiaries relied upon by the Department. Therefore, he submitted that the additional evidence may kindly be admitted and the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O. for verification of the said evidence and for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the A.O. has completed the reassessment on the basis of the information available on record and the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation in the absence of sufficient explanation. However, he fairly submitted that, if the Tribunal is inclined to admit the additional evidence, the matter may be restored to the file of the A.O. for proper verification and fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ on the ground that there was a delay of 187 days in filing the appeal before him and that no valid explanation was furnished for condonation of the said delay. Before us, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay and claimed that the delay occurred on account of the mistake of the counsel, who handled the case before the A.O. and that the delay was otherwise not wilful to derive any benefit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons explained by the assessee, we are of the considered view that, the reasons explained by the assessee constitute 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the delay of 187 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and proceed to examine the issue on merits.

We further find that, the assessee has filed additional evidence before us, including the confirmation letter issued by M/s. Asian Paints Limited, to establish that he is not one of the 9 beneficiaries in the list of beneficiaries filed by M/s. Asian Paints Limited in respect of freebies given to dealers. Since the said additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and requires verification by the A.O., in our considered view, the matter needs to be restored to the file of the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. to verify the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including the confirmation letter filed by M/s. Asian Paints Limited, to prove that the assessee is not one of the beneficiaries in the list of beneficiaries filed by M/s. Asian Paints Limited in respect of freebies given to dealers. The A.O. is directed to verify the same and, in case it is found that the assessee is not one of the beneficiaries, the addition made by the A.O. shall be deleted. We order accordingly.

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

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file