RACHAPALLEM BHANUPRIYA,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), TIRUPATI

There is a delay of 286 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee as well as the affidavit of the Chartered Accountant of the assessee along with the medical record. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee was a salaried employee of M/s. Tata Consultancy Services [in short “TCS”] and filed her return of income on 27.07.2017. While completing the scrutiny assessment u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.24,61,000/- u/sec.69A of the Act on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period. The assessee challenged the Order of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. The impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) on 27.12.2024 however, the assessee came to know about the same in the month of December 2025 when the assessee met her auditor after coming down from Bangalore to enquire about the ill-health of the Auditor/Chartered Accountant. Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee was dependent on the Tax Consultant Sri G.K. Babu, Chartered Accountant, Hyderabad to represent her tax matter before the authorities. However, due to ill-health he could not take steps to prosecute the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and consequently, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. Further, due to his severe injuries and confined to bed from July 2024 to September, 2024 he also developed cardiac issues in December, 2024 and went into depression. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Tax Consultant of the assessee could not attend the office work properly and the entire work schedule got disturbed. Further his aged mother was also undergoing some surgeries and treatment for psychological issues in the year 2025 therefore, the Tax Consultant could not pay attention to the matter which has resulted ex-parte dismissal of appeal as well as not taking further steps for fling the appeal against the impugned order. Only in the month of December 2025 the assessee came to know about the impugned order when she met the Tax Consultant and therefore, there was a delay of 286 days in filing the present appeal. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but due to the reasons of ill-health of Tax Consultant/Chartered Accountant of the assessee. He has thus pleaded that the delay may be condoned, and appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits.

On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee was very much aware about the proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Non-compliance of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) as well as non-filing of the appeal within the period of limitation is nothing but a gross negligence on the part of the assessee. This conduct of the assessee shows that the assessee has not acted diligently in the tax matter.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit which is also supported by the affidavit of the Chartered Accountant. The relevant part of the affidavit of the assessee in Para nos.6 to 14 is as under:

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

In the additional ground the assessee has challenged the applicability of the provisions of sec.115BBE for the assessment year under consideration. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and specifically in Para no.6.7 as under:

Though, thereafter, the learned CIT(A) has also upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer for want of any representation and submissions on behalf of the assessee however, the fact remains that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-prosecution when there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee has explained the reasons for not participating in the proceedings before the learned CIT(A) due to the ill-health and injuries of the Chartered Accountant of the Assessee, we are of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate if the assessee be given one more opportunity to present her case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merits after giving further opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The additional ground raised by the assessee shall also be considered by the learned CIT(A) while deciding the matter.

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