HARI VINAY SINGH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी �वजय पाल राव, उपा� य� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साव�डया, लेखा सद� य के सम� । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 2403/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Hari Vinay Singh Vs. ITO Hyderabad Ward 14 (1) PAN: AUPPS7026R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Hari Vinay Singh (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 29.10.2025 for the A.Y.2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3 under the e-Assessment Scheme and accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on 28.06.2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Consequently, in the absence of supporting evidence, the Ld. AO disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹4,67,36,380/- under section 54 of the Act and ₹50,00,000/- under section 54EC of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 144 read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 17.12.2022 by making total addition of ₹5,17,36,380/- and assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹5,30,41,940/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that though there was a delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a medical practitioner and is not conversant with income-tax proceedings, particularly online proceedings. Therefore, the entire tax matters of the assessee were entrusted to his tax consultant, Late Shri Hari Kishan Asawa. Unfortunately, Shri Hari Kishan Asawa expired during the Covid period. Thereafter, his son Shri Mahesh Asawa took over the practice and requested the assessee to continue the

4 professional engagement. It was submitted that due to the sudden demise of the tax consultant, the entire administrative set-up of the office got disturbed. Shri Mahesh Asawa, being new to the profession, required considerable time to familiarize himself with the pending matters handled by his late father. The Ld. AR further submitted that for income-tax purposes the e-mail ID of Shri Prathik Garg, an assistant working in the office of Late Shri Hari Kishan Asawa, was registered with the Department. After the demise of Shri Hari Kishan Asawa, Shri Prathik Garg left the office and, due to administrative disruptions, the registered e-mail ID of the assessee could not be changed. Consequently, notices issued during assessment proceedings as well as the assessment order were delivered to the said e-mail ID and neither came to the knowledge of Shri Mahesh Asawa nor the assessee. It was submitted that only in July, 2024, Shri Mahesh Asawa came to know about the ex parte assessment order passed in the case of the assessee. Immediately thereafter, he contacted the assessee and necessary steps were taken to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the delay of 597 days occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the affidavits filed by the assessee as well as Shri Mahesh Asawa explaining the reasons for delay and accepting responsibility for the lapse. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits. He invited our attention to the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal comprising page nos. 1 to 65 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee had invested the capital gains in construction of a residential house, invested ₹50,00,000/- in specified bonds under section

5 54EC of the Act and deposited the balance amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme. Therefore, all conditions prescribed under sections 54 and 54EC of the Act stood duly complied with. The Ld. AR submitted that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (167 ITR 471). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Prameela Porika Vs. ACIT, in ITA No.593/Hyd/2025 dated 11.11.2025, wherein under similar circumstances the delay was condoned. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and set aside the issue to his file for consideration of the issue on merits. 7. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that there was an inordinate delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. DR, the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for such extraordinary delay and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. The solitary issue arising for our consideration at this stage is whether the delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. The explanation offered by the assessee reveals that the delay occurred primarily on account of the demise of the tax consultant who was handling the tax affairs of the assessee, the consequent disruption in the administrative functioning of the office, change in personnel

6 handling the matters, and the fact that notices and assessment order were sent to an e-mail ID which was no longer under the control of the persons attending to the tax affairs of the assessee. The assessee has supported the aforesaid explanation by filing affidavits explaining the circumstances leading to the delay. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the explanation furnished by the assessee is false or lacks bona fides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (Supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. 9. We have also perused the additional evidences placed before us at page nos. 1 to 65 of the paper book. Prima facie, the documents indicate that the assessee has a substantial case on merits regarding the claim of deduction under sections 54 and 54EC of the Act. In our considered opinion, such a claim should not be rejected at the threshold merely on account of technical delay, particularly when the assessee has furnished a plausible explanation for the delay. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the affidavits filed by the assessee and Shri Mahesh Asawa, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, we find

7 that the assessee remained negligent in pursuing the appellate remedy within the prescribed period and approached the appellate forum after a substantial delay. Though we are inclined to condone the delay in the larger interest of justice, the fact remains that such delay has resulted in avoidable litigation and consumption of judicial time. Therefore, while exercising our discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to direct the assessee to deposit a sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and furnish proof of such payment before the Ld. AO. 10. Since the assessment was completed ex parte and the assessee claims to possess supporting evidence in respect of deductions claimed under sections 54 and 54EC of the Act, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh examination. Further, on a prima facie examination of the additional evidences filed before us, it appears that the assessee has substantial material in support of the claim of deduction under sections 54 and 54EC of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the issue deserves to be restored for fresh adjudication on merits. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld. AO shall examine the evidences furnished by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all supporting evidences and submissions in support of the claim

made under sections 54 and 54EC of the Act before the Ld. AO. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments so as to facilitate early disposal of the matter.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 24th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Hari Vinay Singh, 414 Raghava Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1) Hyderabad 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: 2026.06.24 17:29:34 +05'30'