SYED SAJID ALI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had mechanically dismissed the assessee's appeal without considering the ITAT's previous order directing a decision on merits. The CIT(A)'s impugned order was found to be unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file with a clear direction to decide the appeal on merits, as previously ordered by the Tribunal on 10/04/2024. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must adhere to the directions of higher tribunals and decide matters on merits, not on procedural observations that have been superseded by subsequent orders. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Syed Sajid Ali, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was time-barred by 135 days, and a condonation application was filed citing the assessee's unawareness of the CIT(A)'s dismissal order and a medical condition. The ITAT condoned the delay. The assessee's counsel stated that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal earlier, observing that the assessee had opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme-2020 (DTVSV-2020). However, due to financial constraints, the assessee could not pay the taxes and thus could not avail the scheme's benefits. The ITAT had previously restored the appeal and directed the assessee to e-file Form-35, with the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. Despite this, the CIT(A) again dismissed the appeal, reiterating that the assessee had availed DTVSV-2020.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground that the assessee had opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme-2020, despite the assessee's inability to pay taxes and the subsequent restoration of the appeal by the ITAT for decision on merits. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that although they initially opted for the DTVSV-2020 scheme, they could not complete the process due to financial difficulties. They further submitted that the ITAT had restored their appeal and directed the CIT(A) to decide it on merits. The CIT(A)'s subsequent dismissal, again citing the DTVSV-2020, was therefore incorrect and failed to follow the Tribunal's directions. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 05/06/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. ITA 86/HYD/2026 SYED SAJID ALI
The appeal is time barred by 135 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been f
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
