MOHAMMED PARVEZ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -14(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2406/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 June 2026AY 2020-218 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, including condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was explained and that the CIT(A) had admitted the appeal on merits before dismissing it on limitation. The assessee argued that no opportunity was given to explain the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 151A,Section 148,Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ�, हैदराबाद INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 2406/HYD/2025 �नधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2020-21) MOHAMMED PARVEZ ITO, WARD -14(1) 9-5-101/102/A, RAMDEV IT TOWERS, AC GUDA IB LINES, GAURDS, MASAB TANK Vs. HYDERABAD-500031, HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA TELANGANA (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��यथ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number of ALPPM9773Q Assessee: �नधा�रती �वारा/Assessee Adv Siddharth Toshnival represented by: राज� व �वारा/Revenue SR-AR Mohan Babu represented by: सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of conclusion 15.06.2026 of hearing: घोषणा क� तार�ख / Date of 24.06.2026 pronouncement:

2 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 13.10.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing 1) the Appeal filed by Appellant u/s 246A against the Order passed u/s 147 r/w section 144 on the ground of delay in filing of Appeal when the delay in filing of Appeal was duly explained and the Appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. 2) That the Appellant had duly explained the delay of 124 days in filing of Appeal before the CIT(Appeals) in the Appeal Memorandum in Form No.35 and subsequently the Appeal was posted for hearing by CIT(Appeals) requiring furnishing of evidences / submissions to rely upon in support of the Grounds of Appeal and having thus admitted the Appeal for adjudication on merits, the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the Appeal on the issue of delay.

3 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 3) That without prejudice to above the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding the explanation given by Appellant in the Appeal Memorandum for delay in filing of Appeal was not sufficient cause. 4) That without prejudice to above, the addition of sum of Rs.1,60,33,071/- u/s 69C r/w section 115BBE is erroneous since there was no unexplained expenditure and the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not deciding this issue. 5) That without prejudice to above, the addition of Rs.21,21,010/- as Business Income of Appellant is erroneous since there was no such Business Income and the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not this issue. 6) That without prejudice to above, the Reopening of Assessment u/s 147 is bad in law as the Reopening was done by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of faceless Reopening u/s 151A r/w E Assessment Scheme of Income escaping Assessment and the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not deciding this issue. 7) That without prejudice to above, the Notice issued u/s 148 dated 06.04.2023 is bad in law as the Notice required Appellant to file Return of Income within 30 days from service of the Notice when

4 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 Section 148 stipulates that three months have to be provided for filing a Return of Income in response to the Notice and the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not deciding this issue. 8) That the Appellant craves leave to add, modify OR delete any Grounds of Appeal.”

3.

The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as the delay of 124 days wrongly stated as 129 days was not condoned by the learned CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the delay in Form-35 itself however, the learned CIT(A) has not issued any show cause notice calling the assessee to explain the delay or to file any further material in support of the explanation but the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were all on the merits of the appeal. Therefore, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A) on limitation without giving an opportunity to the assessee is unjustified and arbitrary. He has pleaded that the assessee

5 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 may be given an opportunity to explain the cause of delay before the learned CIT(A) by filing the supporting evidence and details.

4.

On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the Order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not explained the sufficient cause of delay of 129 days to the satisfaction of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being barred by limitation.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation in Para nos.2.8.1 and 2.9 as under:

“2.8.1. Hence, electronic service of order and notice is valid and the explanation given by the appellant not amount to sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 of the I.T Act. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal of 129 days cannot be accepted.

6 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 2.9. Hence, in view of these facts and on the strength of the judicial decisions referred on the pre pages the delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.”

5.1. The learned CIT(A) has held that the explanation given by the assessee is not found to be sufficient cause whereas it appears that no show cause notice was issued by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee to explain the cause of delay but it has considered the reasons explained by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay as filed along with Form-35. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pointed out that the learned CIT(A) has wrongly considered the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal whereas the actual delay was only 124 days. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned CIT(A) has not given an opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay and notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were only requiring the assessee to file the documentary evidences

7 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 in respect of the merits of the appeal therefore, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the Order of the learned CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal including condonation of delay, after giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay as well as in respect of merits of the appeal.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 24th day of June, 2026 VBP

8 ITA.No.2406/Hyd./2025 Copy to: MOHAMMED PARVEZ, 9-5-101/102/A, RAMDEV 1 GUDA IB LINES, HYDERABAD-500031, TELANGANA 2 ITO, WARD -14(1), IT TOWERS, AC GAURDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA 3 THE Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, Hyderabad. 5 GUARD FILE VADREVU Digitally signed TRUE COPY by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.06.24 I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD RAO 14:55:15 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →