Ravi Kumar Kandala vs. The Income Tax Officer

Heard Mr. Kaitash Nath P.S.S., leamed counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Rcddy, lcarned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Departntent appearing on behalf ol'the respondent.

Vide the impugned order; the Tribunal has rejected an appeal filed by the appeltant on the ground of it being barred by limitation.

The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Act against the appellant on 3t.03.2014 raising a net demand of Rs.10,43,2 l0/-. Aggrieved by thc said assessment order, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal belore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thc said appcal before the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) was fi led with a delay of I 42 days, which subsequently stood condoned. However, subsequently when the appeal was taken up for hearing, as there was llo representation on behalfofthe appellant before the Commissioner oi Inconre Tax (Appeals) in spite of repeated opportunities being given, upholding the asscssment order, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the statutory appeal I I I

Thc queslion of lau, raised by the appellant in the present appeal is "n hether thc Tribunal w.as justilicd in not allowing the condone delay pctitiorl condoning thc dela1, of 29 I3 days in prelerring the appeal under Section 253 ol the Acr'1" 6- It rvas thc coutcntio, o['the lea*red counsel tbr the appellant that thc l-ribunal failed tri appreciate the fact that there was no eflective sc'rvicc of notice issu!'d b1, the Comntissioner ol'Income Tax (Appeals) bclorc dismissing the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the Pagc zl of 9 appellant after the appeal was fi led before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the assessment order, no notices were issued to the consultant whose addless was given for scrvice of notice. As such, the consultant could not follow up the appeal effectively. According to the leamed counsel for the appellant the notice sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was at the earlier residcnce of the appellant which he had subsequently changed, as in betr'veen, he had lost his father at whose house he was residing and which he had vacated and shifted to new premises.

It was also the contention of the learned counsel lor the appellant that neither the service was affectcd upon the consultant, nor was it affected upon the appellant. That the decision rendered by the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) on 06.01.2017 could not be challenged within a reasonable tirnc, and it only recently in January, 2025 that he came to know about the passing of the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and thereafter he had applied lor a certified copy and filed an appcal befbre the Tribunal on 25.05.2025 with a delay of 2913 days.

It s,as also tho corrtention ol the learned counsel for the appellant that lionr tlte pcrusal ol thc trtenlo of appcal lrled hctbre the Cornurissioncr of lt.tcotne lax (Appcals) itsell; it would clearly reflcct that rhe addrcss given for issuance ol notice and the other intimation to be nrade bv thc authorities rvas that of the consultant; however, the noticcs rvere not issued at thc said address. l-his establishes that the tx)tice \\'as issucd nol at a place which was given fbr issuancc of notice in thc r.rrcrro of appcal. 'I'htts., prima .t'izcie, thc appellant was dcprived ol participatine in the procccdings betbre the appellate lorum

For all the aforesaid reasons, the leamed counscl fbr thc appellant prayed lbr setting asidc o{'the impugned order passed by the l'riburlal and tt'Le nratter bc rcnritted back to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal orr rncrits, rather than rendering the appellant remcdiless against the or-dcl ol'the C'ornmissioner of Income T'ax (Appeals)

I)(t' (otltr(t. thc lcarned Senior Standinq Counsel fot' lncome l-ax [)epa(nrcnt contended that it was the appellant himself u'ho had prelerrcd an appeal betble the Cornmissioner of Income Tax (Appeats)

Lastly, it was contended by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department that the delay of 29 13 days has not been sufficiently explained and the explanation so given is not satisfactory

Itr thc afirresaid adnritted lactuaI rnatlix of tlrt case, adrnittedll, thcre u'as no represcutation on behalf of the appeltant when the appeal was bc'ir.rs dccidcd. I'hough there was no representation on behall of the appellant, the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) has decided the appeal on merits alfirming the order o1'the Assessing Officer. Another aspect which has been revealed during the proceedings is that the appellant had lost his father during the relevant point of time, which also had created certain difficult situations at the domestic lront so far as the appellant is concemed. True it is that therc is an inordinate delay on the part ol the appellant in preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, that too, of 2913 days. But the said delay if not condoned, the appellant w'ould be lelt rcmediless against the assessment order rvhich has been contlnned on merits by the Commissioner o1'Income -fax (Appeals) 15. [n view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that subject to thc appellant depositing a hearry costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty l'housand Only) to the Telangana State [,egal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of two wceks tiom date of receipt ol a ccrtified copy of this order, the appeal belore thc Tribuna[ i.e. ITA No.333/Hyd/2025 would stand restored to its original number and the delay of 2913 days in filing of the appeal would also as a consequcnce gets condoned. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal i.e. I-fA

As a sccluel. ntiscellaneous petitions pending il any, shall stand closed, Houcr cr. thcrr' shall bc no order as to costs- , M.RAMANA KRISHNA OINT REGISTRAR //// ECTION OFFICER To,