BETHANY MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH,MAHABUBNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MAHABUBNAGAR
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, 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
Brethren Church,
Mahabubnagar - 509301. Telangana.
Ward-1,
Mahabubnagar.
Telangana.
(Applicant)
(Respondent)
िनधाŊįरतीȪारा/Assessee by : Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate
राज̾ वȪारा/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
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 juri iction 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
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.03.2026. [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA]
[VIJAY PAL RAO]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Hyderabad, Dated 11th March, 2026
VBP
Copy to:
Bethany Mennonite Brethren Church, 1-73, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar – 509 301.Telangana.
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER
VADREVU
PRASADA
RAO
Digitally signed by VADREVU
PRASADA RAO
Date: 2026.03.11
13:45:45 +05'30'