Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to an 87-day delay. The assessee explained that the delay and non-participation in assessment proceedings (leading to an ex-parte order by the AO making additions under Sections 69 and 69A) occurred because the previous Secretary, whose email was registered with the department, passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the new management was unaware of notices or the assessment order until a refund adjustment SMS was received.
Held
The Tribunal found 'sufficient cause' for the 87-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the death of the Secretary and subsequent communication failures. It condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order (which was dismissed in limine), and remanded the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to present relevant records and details.
Key Issues
Whether there was 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) and if the ex-parte assessment order, passed due to communication issues arising from the death of the assessee's Secretary, should be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
148, 144, 147, 69, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 16.07.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi,, for the assessment year 2018-2019.
2 ITA.No.1292/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. “The Learned CIT(A) Erred in facts and law in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Appellant.
2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in providing sufficient opportunity of being heard provided to the Appellant.
3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law by not considering the reasons furnished by the Appellant in Statement of Facts for Re the reasons for delay in filing of Appeal.
4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law in disposing the case on merits for the additions made by the Learned AO to the tune of Rs.2,65,49,737/- without considering the information submitted by the Appellant. 5. Any Other Ground/s which may be urged during the course of Appellate Proceedings.”
3. At the outset, 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. He has submitted that there was a delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) has declined to condone the said delay
3 ITA.No.1292/Hyd./2025 resulting the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee in limine, without deciding the same on merits. He has pointed-out that the assessee has now filed an Affidavit before the Tribunal to explain the cause of delay before the learned CIT(A). The erstwhile Secretary of the Assessee-Institution was managing the entire affairs of the Assessee-Institution was expired on 18.06.2020 which was also a period of Covid-2019 pandemic. Therefore, all the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessment order were communicated only to the email-ID of the deceased Secretary and hence, the same were not communicated to the assessee or the new Management of the Assessee-Institution, after the demise of the earlier Secretary. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has thus, submitted that due to non- communication of notice as well as assessment order, the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings and also was not aware about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. It was only on 29.05.2024 an SMS was received on the registered mobile regarding adjustment of refund against the demand, the assessee came to know
4 ITA.No.1292/Hyd./2025 about the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and thereafter, immediately took steps for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) may be condoned and since the appeal of the assessee was not decided by the learned CIT(A) on merits and the Assessing Officer has also passed the impugned order ex-parte due to non-participation of the assessee, the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. He has submitted that the assessee would cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and file the necessary record and details for verification and examination of the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the earlier Secretary of the Assessee-Institution was expired on 18.06.2020, whereas the return for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 01.06.2022 pursuant to notice u/sec.148 physically served on the assessee. Therefore, at the time of filing the return of income,
5 ITA.No.1292/Hyd./2025 the assessee was supposed to give the correct email-ID and address in the return of income filed after the death of the Secretary, then, the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient to explain the delay of 87 days. He has relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A).
5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) in limine after declining to condone the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the assessment order was also passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.144 r.w.s.147 when there was no response/compliance on behalf of the assessee to the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of the entire deposits in the bank account u/secs.69 and 69A of the Act. The assessee has now filed an Affidavit of the Joint Secretary to explain the reasons for non-participation before the Assessing Officer as well as the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) which reads as under :
6 ITA.No.1292/Hyd./2025 “AFFIDAVIT
I, Akheel Ahmed, son of Mohammed Abdul Aziz, Joint Secretary of M/s. Federation of A.P. Minority Educational Institutions, having office at Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :
That there is a gap of 117 days from the date of the impugned order, resulting in a delay of 87 days in the filing of the Appeal for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
That Late Mr. Mohammed Jafer, the then Secretary of the Institution, who was managing the entire affairs of the Organisation, passed away on 18th June, 2020.
That the Accounts of the Institution were being maintained by the Accountant of Nizam Group of Institutions, which was chaired by Late Mr. Mohammed Jafer.
4. Thereafter I being Joint Secretary assumed charge of the administration and management of the Institution.
That the Return of Income for AY 2018-19 was filed on 01- 06-2022 pursuant to a physical notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein the email ID zubairfapmei@gmail.com and mobile number 9866217786 were reflected. I found the OTARL login credentials pertaining to the income tax portal while going through all the relevant files. At the time of filing the Return of Income, the contact details were updated to include email IDs ftmeisecretary@gmail.com and zubairfapmei@gmail.com, and mobile numbers 9700375315 and 9866217786.
7 ITA.No.1292/Hyd./2025 6. That all statutory notices and orders relating to the assessment proceedings, however came to be issued vkmedicharla @yahoo.com and nizamgroupofinstitution rediffmail.com instead updated contact details mentioned in the Return of Income. The former email address belonged to the Accountant, who ceased to be associated with the Institution following the demise of the then Secretary, and the latter email address was exclusively accessible to Late Mr. Mohammed Jafer.
That an SMS message dated 29th May, 2024 was received on the registered mobile number stating that refund pertaining to AY 2023-24 was adjusted against prior demands.
That upon receipt of the said communication, I immediately approached our Chartered Accountant, whereupon I came to know that a demand of Rs.4,34,86,460 had been raised for the AY 2018- 19.
That the First Appellate proceedings were thereafter initiated, and Form No.35 was filed on 04-07-2024 by the Chartered Accountant for AY 2018-19 challenging the Assessment Order dated 09-03-2024.
That the delay in filing the Appeal has occurred solely due to the reasons narrated hereinabove, which were beyond the control of the deponent, and the same is neither wilful nor deliberate.