THIRUPATHI REDDY DASARI,KARIMNAGAR vs. ITO,WARD -2, KARIMNAGAR

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 585/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Thirupathi Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Dasari, KARIMNAGAR Ward 2 PAN: AGOPD6089S Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate R. Mohan Kumar राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri B Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 26.12.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the A.Y 2015-16. 2. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

Also, the assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 148 is bad in law in as much as the same was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149 since the escapement of income was below 50 lakhs and consequently, the assessment proceedings are rendered invalid.

sought condonation thereof. However, the Ld. CIT (A) did not find favor with the explanation of the assessee and declined to condone the delay in exercise of the powers vested with him under sub-section (3) of 249 of the Act and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), has carried the matter before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the Ld. ARs of both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate (Ld. AR) for the 7. assessee at the threshold of the hearing, submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in summarily declining to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee, who is a retired Andhra Pradesh State Govt. Employee, aged about 73 years, and deriving only pensionable income and interest on FDs, had in “Form 35” put forth an explanation regarding the delay in filing of the appeal, and submitted that the same had primarily crept in for the reason that he had remained unaware of the procedure to access the income tax portal, and on learning about the assessment having been framed in his case, had involving no further loss of time approached a Counsel to file the appeal, but the same by the time involved a delay of 101 days. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) without putting the assessee to notice had summarily declined to condone the delay; as a result whereof, the assessee appellant had been deprived of an opportunity to explain the reasons leading to the delay based on supporting

documentary evidence. The Ld. AR submitted that the matter, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to afford an opportunity to the assessee to put forth an explanation regarding the reasons leading to the delay in filing the appeal before him. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that as the assessee appellant had failed to come forth with any justifiable reasons leading to the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the latter had rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. 9. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. ARs of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record. 10. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) involved a 101-day delay, which the first appellate authority declined to condone. I find that the assessee retired as a State Government employee in the year 2010 and derives only pensionable income and interest income from FDs. I find that the assessee, at Column 15 of the memorandum of appeal in “Form 35”, had stated the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), but the latter, without issuing any notice to him, had summarily declined to condone the same and dismissed the appeal. 11. I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the manner in which the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, declining to condone the delay in filing it. I say so for

the reason that, as the assessee had in “Form 35” explained the reasons leading to the delay in filing the appeal, the CIT(A) ought to have afforded an opportunity to him so that he could have substantiated his said explanation based on supporting documentary evidence, if any. Apart from that, I am of the firm conviction that, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay. 12. Be that as it may, I am of the firm conviction that the manner in which the Ld. CIT (A) had summarily dismissed the appeal of the assessee without affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the same cannot be subscribed to on my part. I thus set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to afford an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal before him and thereafter, decide as to whether or not the same merits to be condoned in exercise of the discretion vested with him as per sub-section (3) of section 249 of the I.T. Act. I thus set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) in terms of the aforesaid observations. In case the CIT(A) condones the delay, then he shall decide the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order of assessment has been assailed before him by the assessee-appellant. 13. Before parting, I may clarify that I have only set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT (A) for affording an opportunity to the assessee to put forth an explanation before him regarding the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal and had

nowhere expressed any view regarding his explanation, which the first appellate authority will remain at liberty to look into in the course of the set aside proceedings 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing, i.e., on 27th August, 2026. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Hyderabad, dated 27th August, 2026. Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Thirupathi Reddy Dasari, 2-10-1965 Bhagyanagar, Karimnagar, 505001 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Natraj Theatre, Karimnagar 505001 3 Pr. CIT Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order

TIRUPATI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI YAMINI NAGA NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.08.28 MALLESWARI 10:41:05 +05'30'