AMMA AGRO FARMS,TIRUPATI vs. ITO, WARD -1 (2), TIRUPATI

At the outset, there is a delay of 277 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Managing Partner of the assessee firm. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order u/sec.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 which was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has remanded the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication however, the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment order for want of notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act has not been adjudicated by the learned CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further submitted that since the learned CIT(A) remanded the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee therefore, the assessee initially was under the impression that there is no need to file an appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) however, thereafter when the assessee consulted the Counsel to represent the case before the Assessing Officer he found that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the legal ground raised by the assessee and advised the assessee to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the Tribunal by raising the legal ground. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the misunderstanding of the assessee and bonafide belief which was subsequently realized when the assessee consulted the Counsel that the legal issue has not been adjudicated by the learned CIT(A). Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pleaded that the delay of 277 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned and appeal of the assessee be admitted for adjudication on merits. He has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC).

On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that this is an inordinate delay, and assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has filed the appeal belatedly after a delay of 277 days before the Tribunal. The assessee has explained the cause of delay that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment and then passed an ex-parte order which was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has remanded the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was under the bonafide impression that no appeal is required to be filed against the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and thereafter, on receipt of the show cause notice from the Assessing Officer dated 31.10.2025 the assessee consulted the Counsel for representation before the Assessing Officer who pointed out that the learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has not decided the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment order without issuing notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act. We have given our deep thought on the reasons explained by the assessee as well as the fact that the learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has not decided the ground no.2 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment order but remanded the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment as per law. Accordingly, we take a lenient view to condone the delay of 277 days in filing the present appeal subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to ITAT Tax Bar Association, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of this order. The appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 22.01.2018 in response to which, the assessee filed a reply dated 16.02.2018 and specifically stated that the return filed by the assessee u/sec.139 of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act. He has filed copy of the said reply dated 16.02.2018. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that once the assessee has complied the notice u/sec.148 by filing the reply and return of income filed by the assessee u/sec.139 of the Act be treated as return in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer ought to have issue a valid notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act before passing the re-assessment order. He has then referred to the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not issued any notice u/sec.143(2) before passing the impugned order and therefore, the same is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC).

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly stated in the assessment order that the assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer has also not referred to any reply as alleged by the assessee dated 16.02.2018 whereas the objections raised by the assessee vide letter dated 26.03.2018 against the reopening of the assessment were duly considered by the Assessing Officer as not maintainable for want of any return of income. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that when the Assessing Officer has given finding in the assessment order that assessee has not filed any return of income till the assessment order was passed then the question of issuing notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act does not arise.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee raised a legal issue in ground no.2 before the learned CIT(A) as under: “2. The learned assessing officer erred in framing the impugned assessment even without issuing the statutory notice under sub section 2 of section 143 of the IT Act.”

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.07.2026.