DODLA SRINIVAS SURAGONI,MEDAK vs. ITO, WARD-1, , SIDDIPET

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.2316/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2020-21 ) Shri Dodla Srinivas Suragoni Vs. Income Tax Officer MEDAK Ward – 1 PAN: GYEPS8229B Siddipet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate P Vinod राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Abhinav Pitta, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 21/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/04/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Dodla Srinivas Suragoni (“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 10.10.2025 for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not admitting the appeal

on the alleged ground of delay of 36 days in filing the appeal and dismissing the appeal in limini. 2. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not objectively exercising the discretionary power granted by law in him, and in approaching the issue of delay in hyper technical manner. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have appreciated that the Appellant is an agriculturist and this is the only year in which he faced income tax proceedings and is completely dependent on the tax practitioner for pursuing his case. 3. The 1d. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant cannot be penalized for the time lost in the process of filing the appeal particularly considering the fact that the delay is not abnormal by any means. For these and other grounds that may be urged, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed, directing the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 22.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21. However, there was a delay of 36 days in filing the said appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), without condoning the delay, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation.

Chartered Accountant was preoccupied with bank audit assignments and could not attend to the filing of the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that when the assessee again contacted the said Chartered Accountant in the second week of May 2025, he was unable to take up the work due to preoccupation with marriage ceremonies in his family. Thereafter, the assessee searched for a new counsel and ultimately got the appeal filed through another counsel. Due to these circumstances, a delay of 36 days occurred in filing the appeal. It was further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not effectively present his case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to dismissal of the appeal on limitation, and even before the Ld. AO, the assessee could not substantiate his claims with necessary documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) invited our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the assessee to explain the delay along with supporting evidence. However, the assessee failed to respond before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee was also not diligent in complying with the notices issued by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, it was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in

dismissing the appeal on account of delay and no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the condonation petition along with the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that the delay of 36 days occurred due to the assessee initially relying on a Chartered Accountant who was preoccupied with bank audit work and thereafter due to his personal engagements. Subsequently, the assessee had to engage another counsel for filing the appeal, which resulted in the delay. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons explained by the assessee constitute sufficient cause for delay. The delay does not appear to be intentional or deliberate but is attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. 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. Respectfully following the said decision and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Further, we observe that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on technical grounds without adjudicating the issues on merits. We also note that the assessee has contended that he could not file necessary documentary evidence before the Ld. AO, which requires verification at the assessment stage. In the interest of justice,

we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary documentary evidence and submissions before the Ld. AO in support of his claim and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the course of proceedings.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 24th April, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Dodla Srinivas Suragoni, 8-89 Chandlapur B.O Chinnakodur, Medak 502276 2 Income Tax Officer Ward -1 8-1-44, 4th Floor, Krishna Reddy Chambers, Hyderabad Road, Siddipet 502103 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order

TIRUPATI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.04.24 14:47:27 MALLESWARI +05'30'