BETHANY MENNONITE BRETHREN CHRUCH,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ 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. 426/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Bethany Mennonite Vs. ITO Brethren Church Ward – 1 Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar PAN: AACAB3321J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate SNSR Chinmai राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 01/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Bethany Mennonite Brethren Church (“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 03.12.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law;

2) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the detailed explanation submitted before him for the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal; 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the Chairman of the Church has undergone treatment during the period and he was not in a position to attend regular duties and, therefore, there was delay in filing the appeal; 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the submissions made before him and admitted the appeal; 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the grounds on merit; 6) The learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the notice issued u/s 148A(b), the order passed u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act are not valid as they are not issued by the appropriate authority and consequently the learned CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessment is not valid; 7) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the amount of Rs.15,85,000/- is already recorded in the books of account as a Corpus Fund and that no such addition could have been made by the Assessing Officer; 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16 against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO") under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 20.02.2024. However, there was a delay of 47 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.

Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR“) invited our attention to the condonation petition, affidavit and medical records placed at page nos. 2 to 11 of the paper book, which were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was submitted that the delay of 47 days occurred on account of the circumstances explained in the affidavit and supported by medical records. The Ld. AR further submitted that while rejecting the condonation petition, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the aforesaid documents filed by the assessee. According to the Ld. AR, the impugned order does not contain any discussion regarding the affidavit and medical evidence produced by the assessee and therefore suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it was prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the condonation petition after taking into account the documents filed by the assessee. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that he would have no objection if the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration of the condonation petition filed by the assessee in accordance with law. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 47 days. We further find that the assessee had filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit and medical records in support of the explanation for the delay placed at page nos. 2 to 11 of the paper book. The grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.

CIT(A), while rejecting the condonation petition, did not consider the aforesaid documents placed before him. On perusal of the impugned order, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that there is no proper discussion regarding the affidavit and medical evidence furnished by the assessee in support of the delay. Since the documents relied upon by the assessee have a direct bearing on the issue of condonation of delay, the same ought to have been duly examined by the Ld. CIT(A) before arriving at a conclusion on the condonation petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fair stand taken by the Ld. DR, 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 of the issue relating to condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the delay in filing the appeal before him after duly considering the condonation petition, affidavit and medical records filed by the assessee and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th July, 2026. Sd/- sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 8th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

S.No Addresses 1 Bethany Mennonite Brethren Church, 1-73 Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar, 509301 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Mahabubnagar 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: 2026.07.08 16:56:44 +05'30'