VENKATA SUBBARAYUDU BOLLAM,AKIVIDU vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 09/10/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of 2 Venkata Subbarayudu Bollam vs. ITO the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 16/12/2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1: Learned CIT(A)erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal, without appreciating the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that the expression "sufficient cause" must be considered liberally to advance substantial justice. 2: Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that delay was not justified, without appreciating that:  The email ID (taxpayers45@gmail.com) used for issuing notices u/s 148, 142(1), 144 and later u/s 250 belonged to the tax consultant who filed return in AY 2012-13,  The assessee had relocated from Hyderabad to Akividu in 2015, lost contact with the earlier consultant, and had no access to the said email, and no ITR was filed after AY2012-13 3: Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee "regularly uses" the email/mobile merely because they appear in Form 35. as the data in the Form was auto-populated by the portal/ filled by the consultant, and the assessee had control over or access to the email address. 4: The finding that "no reply was filed by the assessee" is erroneous, as the Notice itself was issued to the same inaccessible consultant's email. 5: Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting condonation based on extraneous considerations such as: Non-filing of ITR, Non-response to Notices, High- value transactions and Alleged negligence in earlier proceedings, whereas merits or conduct in assessment cannot be used as grounds to reject condonation; only sufficiency of cause for delay is relevant. 6: The appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground of Appeal.”

3 Venkata Subbarayudu Bollam vs. ITO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023. Notice under section 30/03/2024 was issued and served upon the assessee. However, the assessee failed to furnish his return of income in compliance therewith.

4 days. Ostensibly, it was the assessee's claim before the First Appellate Authority that the email ID provided in his income tax portal by his Tax Consultant based in Hyderabad, who had filed his return of income for the year 2012-13, was taxpayers45@gmail.com. Elaborating on his explanation, it was stated that as he had no knowledge of the email Id provided in his return of income nor any physical notice intimating the fixation of his case was received by him as he had shifted from Hyderabad to Akividu about 10 years ago (a fact which could be gathered from his records), thus, he remained unaware about the ongoing assessment proceedings, and failed to participate in the same and furnish the requisite details, which, thus, had resulted to an ex-parte assessment order, wherein the AO had held the entire amount of cash withdrawals of Rs.2.26 crores made by him in the normal course of his business of fish farming from his bank account, as his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, it has been the assessee’s claim that as he remained oblivious of both the ongoing

5 Venkata Subbarayudu Bollam vs. ITO assessment proceedings and the framing of the assessment in his case, he had suffered an ex parte assessment vide an order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 16/12/2024. 8. Before us, Shri K Siva Ram, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the delay of 117 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) had crept in for the reason that the assessee had remained unaware about the framing of the assessment for the subject year. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) was for bona fide reasons and not on account of any lackadaisical approach on the part of the assessee, therefore, he ought to have condoned the same and disposed of the appeal on merits.

6 Venkata Subbarayudu Bollam vs. ITO he was based at Hyderabad, i.e., taxpayers45@gmail.com. However, as the assessee is stated to have shifted to Akividu and had remained unaware about the aforesaid email ID i.e., taxpayers45@gmail.com, therefore, he had remained oblivious about the initiation of the assessment proceedings in his case vide notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/03/2024 as well as the consequential ex-parte assessment framed in his case vide order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 16/12/2024. 11. In our view, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee resulting in the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) has substance and could not have been summarily discarded. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, are of firm conviction that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 117 days involved in the appeal filed before him and disposed of the appeal on merits instead of summarily dismissing the same in limine.

7 Order pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2026. S /- (मधुसूदन साव"डया) (रवीश सूद) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (RAVISH SOOD) लेखासद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यकसद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER d/- Hyderabad, dated 17/06/2026. **OKK/sps आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER KAMALA KUMAR KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.06.17 14:44:33 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad.