ALAPATI MURALI KRISHNA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), , GUNTUR

In this case, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 278 days. The assessee filed condonation petition requesting to condone the delay. During the hearing, the Ld.A.R submitted that this case was represented by one Shri Jonnalagadda Ramaiah Choudhary, ITP, who was given authorization to represent the case. During the pendency of appeal proceedings, the authorized representative of the assessee was hospitalized and could not attend to the office work and subsequently expired on 25.03.2017. Due to lack of proper knowledge of Income Tax proceedings, the assessee could not focus on follow up action of the assessment proceedings and subsequent filing of appeal against the order of the AO. On being pressurised for payment of the demand by the department, the assessee could understand the post assessment consequences and approached the present AR for remedial measures. On the advice of the Ld.AR, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 278 days. Though the assessee made request for condonation of delay, the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in- limine. Hence, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.

During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that the Authorised Representative who was looking after the case was expired and the

On the other hand, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed for condoning the delay and remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the authorized representative who was representing the case had expired, because of which the assessee suffered for lack of proper guidance. Hence, the assessee could not make follow up the assessment and take remedial measures for filing the appeal. Only on pressing demand by the AO, the assessee realized the seriousness and approached the present Counsel, who has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 278 days. In the instant case, the ITP had expired and the fact was not disputed by the AO. The assessee would not get any benefit by not filing the appeal. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that there is sufficient and reasonable

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