What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal before it. It also condoned the 99-day delay before the CIT(A), finding the reason for delay (overseas project) to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 19 days, citing his father's illness. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 99-day delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal also addressed the delay in filing the appeal before itself.

Sravan Kumar Kesha vs ITO | ITAT Hyderabad 2019

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya

For Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Hearing: 09/12/2019Pronounced: 13/12/2019

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) – 1, Hyderabad dated 19/07/2016 for AY 2010-11, dismissing the assessee’s appeal by rejecting the condonation of delay of 99 days.

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal before us and to this effect, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein that his father was suffering from illness and was advised bed rest and assessee had to take care of his father, for which medical certificate is enclosed. As the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time, I am inclined to condone the delay of 19 days in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for hearing and adjudication.

2 I.T.A. No. 1632/Hyd/16 Sravan Kumar Kesha, Hyd.

As regards the delay of 99 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has filed a letter giving the reasons for the delay but there was no supporting affidavit for the same. Assessee had stated that he left for UK on 16/02/2013 for overseas onsite project and returned to India on 29/04/2013 and as he was not aware of the consequences of the assessment proceedings under the IT Act, the assessee had tried to approach the AO to get clarification on the order and filed the appeal only after receiving the advice from a professional, due to which, there occurred a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). In support of his submissions, copy of the passport is filed to prove that the assessee was out of country for a period of two months.

After gone through the material on record, I find that the appeal ought to have been filed before the CIT(A) on or before 23rd May, 2013. Since the assessee was out of station for a period of 2 months i.e. from 16/02/2013 to 29/04/2013, the period allowed to file the appeal had elapsed resulting in the delay of 99 days in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee proved the reasonableness of delay by way of documentary evidence, I am inclined to condone the delay of 99 days and remand the appeal to CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3 I.T.A. No. 1632/Hyd/16 Sravan Kumar Kesha, Hyd.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 13th December, 2019.

Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 13th December, 2019. kv Copy forwarded to: 1. Sravan Kumar Kesha, C/o Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate, Flat No. 102, Shriya’s Elegance, 3-6-643, Street No. 9, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029. 2. ITO, Ward – 12(4), IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 3. CIT(A) - 1, Hyderabad. 4. Pr. CIT – 1, Hyderabad. 5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6. Guard File

SRAVAN KUMAR KESHA, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments