PRAVEEN KUMAR VAILA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 676/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 June 2026AY 2017-20187 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, imposing a cost on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee faced a delay in filing the present appeal before the ITAT due to issues with their consultants and lack of familiarity with online procedures.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 09/06/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 676/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Praveen Kumar Vaila Vs. ITO Hyderabad Ward 14(3) PAN: ACBPV9657K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Pawan Chakrapani and Advocate Santi Pavan Kumar राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Smt. Uppaluri Meena, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Praveen Kumar Vaila (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 06.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 229 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons which prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The

Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is an uneducated person and is not acquainted with the online procedures prescribed under the Act and, therefore, entirely depends upon professional consultants for compliance with statutory requirements. It has been submitted that the consultant who was handling the filing of income-tax returns and the consultant who was looking after the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) were different. According to the Ld. AR, after filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the consultant handling the return filing changed the online password, due to which the consultant who was prosecuting the appellate proceedings could not access the portal and consequently remained unaware of the notices and proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted that only upon receipt of notice under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 12.02.2025, the assessee contacted a new consultant and came to know that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) had already been dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee immediately took steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, according to the Ld. AR, the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to the peculiar circumstances narrated above. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal and acceptance of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In our considered opinion the explanation furnished by the assessee constitutes a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay in filing the appeal. We find no material on record to suggest that the delay was occasioned due to any mala fide intention or deliberate inaction on the part of the assessee. It is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. The Courts have consistently held that unless gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributable to a litigant, a pragmatic approach should be adopted while considering condonation petitions. In the present case, we find that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the circumstances leading to the delay. The explanation appears to be plausible and supported by an affidavit. Further, refusal to condone the delay would result in denial of an opportunity to the assessee to contest the matter on merits, whereas no serious prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned and the matter is adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and following the liberal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 229 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

5.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

6.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. However, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the issues on merits. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that due to the negligence and non-compliance on the part of the earlier counsel, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) could not be properly attended. As a result, the appeal of the assessee came to be dismissed ex parte. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and, therefore, one more opportunity may be granted in the interest of justice. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the submissions of the assessee and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had already granted sufficient opportunities to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to avail the said opportunities and, therefore, no further indulgence is called for. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed primarily on account of non-compliance by the assessee. We are of the considered view that the appellate proceedings before

the Ld. CIT(A) are quasi-judicial in nature and the issues raised by an assessee should ordinarily be decided on merits after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the issues afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all necessary evidences, documents and explanations in support of its claims before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) shall duly consider the same while deciding the appeal. At the same time, considering the fact that the assessee failed to avail the opportunities already granted by the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said amount in 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. CIT(A) during the remand proceedings. The assessee is further directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings. In case of failure on the part of the assessee to cooperate, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed and decide the appeal in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 17th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri PRAVEEN KUMAR VAILA 6-1-213 ,CIB QUARTERS KHAIRATABAD HYDERABAD 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3) IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500004 3 Pr. CIT – Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.06.17 RAO 17:10:58 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →