SHAIK NAZIMA,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that delay in filing of appeal was due to medical grounds and requested the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and provide opportunity of being heard to explain her case. The assessee further submitted that, she was ready to appear before the concerned authority and explain the details relating to additions made by the A.O. Therefore, the assessee requested the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the reasons explained for delay in filing of appeal, observed that, the assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 594 days from the date of service of assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, except making general statement regarding medical grounds, the assessee has not furnished any credible or reliable medical evidences to substantiate the claim that the delay was caused due to illness or circumstances beyond her control. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, mere general assertions without supporting medical records or documentary evidences do not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ as not maintainable.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri K. Dinesh Reddy, Advocate and Shri K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’ without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to explain the reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessment order itself was passed ex parte and the assessee could not properly explain the case before the authorities below. Therefore, they submitted that, the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and the issue may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee failed to furnish any supporting documentary evidences to substantiate the reasons explained for delay of 594 days in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts and provisions of Section 249(3) of the Act, has rightly rejected the condonation petition filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’. Therefore, he submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that, the assessee has neither filed return of income nor responded to various notices issued by the A.O. and thus, the A.O. has passed best judgment assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, on 12.03.2024 and determined the total income of Rs. 73,95,595/-. The assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order and the said appeal was filed on 26.11.2025 with a delay of 594 days. In column nos. 14 and 15 of Form No.35, the assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal and also requested the Ld. CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to explain her case. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without providing any opportunity dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’ which is evident from the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated, 10.02.2026 where there is no iota of any kind of opportunity provided to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’ for the delay in filing of the appeal cannot be upheld. Further, since the assessee proceedings itself is ex parte and the assessee did not get opportunity of hearing to explain her case and further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the issues on merits, in our considered view, the issue needs to be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal filed by the assessee after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All the issues involved in the appeal, including the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) are left open to be contested by the assessee and to decide the issue as per law.

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

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