THAKUR VIJAY SINGH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1940/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 July 2026AY 2016-201713 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's medical condition and a liberal approach. It also held that the CIT(A)'s decision to adjudicate on merits after declining to condone the delay implied condonation of that delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 78 days due to a spinal cord ailment. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 due to a 25-day delay, despite also adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) implicitly condoned the delay by deciding the appeal on merits after refusing to condone it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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: 09/07/2026

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. 1940/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Thakur Vijay Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 9(1) PAN: ARPPS7654E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Satish Kumar राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Thakur Vijay Singh (“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 27.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”)

submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was suffering from a spinal cord ailment and was experiencing acute pain, due to which he was unable to take timely steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In support of the said contention, the assessee has placed on record medical certificates appearing at page nos. 32 and 33 of the paper book. The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was contended that the assessee was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient for condonation of delay. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed as barred by limitation. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that there is a delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The explanation furnished by the assessee is that he was suffering from a spinal cord ailment accompanied by acute pain during the relevant period and, therefore, could not take timely steps

for filing the appeal. The assessee has also substantiated the said explanation by placing medical certificates on record at page nos. 32 and 33 of the paper book. On perusal of the material available on record, we do not find any reason to doubt the bona fides of the explanation furnished by the assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, intentional, or attributable to negligence on the part of the assessee. The explanation appears to be reasonable and supported by documentary evidence. We further note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has categorically held that while dealing with petitions for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted so that substantial justice is advanced. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the medical evidence placed on record, and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

6.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under sections 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17 vide order dated 27.03.2023. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 25 days. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR, inviting our attention to para nos.4 to 4.3 of the impugned order, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. He further inviting our attention to para nos. 6 to 10 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A), submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) inspite of decline to condone the delay, proceeded to adjudicate the issues on merits also. The Ld. AR submitted that once the Ld. CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay, he ought not to have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. It was further submitted that once the merits of the case were examined and adjudicated upon, it would amount to an implied condonation of delay by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to prosecute his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relying upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.

CIT(A) on the ground of limitation and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone through para nos. 4.3 to 10 of the impugned appellate order, which is to the following effect:

11.

On a perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) did not stop himself by dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation alone but proceeded further to adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal on merits. We further find that an identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Mandadi Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 214/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 vide order

dated 26.11.2025. In para nos. 8 to 10 of the said order, the Tribunal has held as under:

12.

On perusal of the above, we find that this Tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), held that where the Ld. CIT(A) does not stop with the order declining to condone the delay but proceeds to examine and reject the case on merits, it would amount to an implied condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal before him. In the present case also, the Ld. CIT(A) did not stop with declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal but proceeded to adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Mandadi Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. ITO (supra), we hold that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) stood impliedly condoned.

13.

We further find that the assessee did not get adequate opportunity to effectively prosecute his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all documentary evidences, explanations and submissions in support of his claim before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment during the remand proceedings. In case the assessee fails to cooperate, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the appeal in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 15th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

S.No Addresses 1 Shri THAKUR VIJAY SINGH H NO 8-3-51/A/3,BUPESH GUPTA NAGAR ,SAROOR NAGAR KARMANGHAT,VAISHALINAGAR HYDERABAD 500079 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 9(1) IT Towers, Masab Tank, 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: 2026.07.15 12:15:41 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →