Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 24 days, attributing it to the medical condition of the Chairman of the Assessee Society. The CIT(A) erroneously calculated the delay as 56 days and dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made an apparent mistake in calculating the delay and that the reasons for rejection were not based on correct facts. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 24 days and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for a wrongly calculated delay without considering the reasons provided for condonation and adjudicating the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148A, 148, 144B, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.No.2012/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Bethany Mennonite The Income Tax Officer, Brethren Church, Ward-1, vs. Mahabubnagar - 509301. Mahabubnagar. Telangana. Telangana. PAN AACAB3321J (Applicant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by : Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been by the Assessee against the Order dated 01.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-2017.
2 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1) “The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in deciding the appeal in limini without condoning the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. 3) The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that reckoning the date of order of assessment i.e. 12.3.2024, the delay in filing the appeal before CIT (Appeals) on 6.5.2024 works out to 25 days only and not 56 days. 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 is not justified as the income escaping assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs and more than 3 years expired after the end of the previous year; 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar has to no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148A(b), pass an order u/s 148A(d) and to issue notice u/s 148 of the I.T.Act and accordingly the order of assessment is invalid; 6) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer without considering the grounds raised by the appellant herein; 7) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the Assessing Officer is not justified in arriving at the income at Rs.53,60,580/- by making additions of Rs.33,60,580/- and Rs.20,00,000/-; 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;”
3 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 3. At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation after declining to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. He has referred to the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that in Para no.6 of the impugned order the learned CIT(A) has proceeded to consider the condonation of delay and presumed the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal whereas, the actual delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was only 24 days. He has then referred to the petition of the assessee for condonation of delay along with the affidavit of the assessee filed before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has explained the cause of delay in the petition that the Chairman of the Assessee Society who was 74 years old and was on the bed rest due to the spinal problem [lower back ache] w.e.f. 31.10.2023. He underwent MRI for spine and was under medical treatment of the Neuro Surgeon of Palamuru Neuro Centre, Mahabubnagar. Initially he was advised to rest for 03 months and thereafter, on 4 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 review of medical condition he was further advised to rest for another 03 months. He has referred to the copies of the medical certificates issued by the hospital and submitted that due to medical problem of the Chairman of the Assessee Society there was a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Further, the learned CIT(A) without considering and appreciating the cause of delay, has declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without deciding the same on merits. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal may be condoned and matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has given the reasons for not condoning the delay in para nos.6.2 to 7 of the impugned order.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in light of the reasons explained by the assessee for delay of 24
5 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 days in filing the appeal in the petition filed along with the affidavit of the assessee as well as the medical certificate. The learned CIT(A) has assumed the delay in filing the appeal of 56 days whereas as per Para-1 of the learned CIT(A) the appeal was instituted on 06.05.2024 against the assessment order dated 12.03.2024 resulting the delay of 24 days only. For ready reference, Para no.1 of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
“This appeal is instituted on 06.05.2024 against the assessment order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the NeFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for A.Y 2016-17. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to the National Faceless Appeals Center in term of Notification No.76/2020 dated 25.09.2020 issued from CBDT, New Delhi.”
It is otherwise matter of record that the assessment order was passed on 12.03.2024 and the limitation for filing the appeal was to expire on 11.04.2024 but appeal was filed on 06.05.2024 resulting in a delay of 24 days in filing the appeal. However, the learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay by considering the delay in filing the appeal as 56 days which is an apparent mistake in 6 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 the order of the learned CIT(A) and therefore, the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) for rejecting the petition for condonation of delay is not based on the correct facts. Even otherwise, when the assessee has explained the cause of delay in the petition which is supported by the affidavit as well as the medical certificate about the medical condition of the Chairman of the Assessee Society then, the appeal filed by the assessee ought to have been decided on merits instead of dismissing the same on technical reasons of delay. The assessee would be left with no remedy if the order of the learned CIT(A) is accepted for dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we condone the delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal before the learned CIT(A).
6.1. Since the appeal of the assessee has not been adjudicated on merits by the learned CIT(A) therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits, after giving an 7 ITA.No.2012/Hyd./2025 appropriate opportunity of hearing of the assessee as well as considering the relevant documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the paper book.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.03.2026.