Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the AO's order for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's inability to comply with notices, attributing it to counsel issues and medical reasons. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's medical condition and counsel's issues. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee to present additional evidence.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 142(1), 192
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Arul Sundaram Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12(1) PAN:AWAPS1005P Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Arul Sundaram (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 27.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 129 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of the affidavit,
Page 1 of 6 explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee was suffering from malfunctioning of kidneys and had been bedridden for more than one year. The doctors had also advised the assessee to undergo kidney transplant. Owing to his serious medical condition, the assessee was completely dependent on his counsel for attending the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the counsel failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and also did not inform the assessee about his non- appearance. The assessee has also filed an affidavit of the counsel, Shri M. Mahesh Reddy, in support of this contention. It was submitted that the assessee came to know about the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only when he received a penalty order dated 25.07.2025 from the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). Immediately thereafter, the assessee made necessary arrangements and filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 08.08.2025. The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, and there was no deliberate or mala fide intention to delay the proceedings. Hence, it was prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
Having considered the submissions and perused the materials on record, we are of the view that the reasons explained
Page 2 of 6 by the assessee constitute a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the medical condition of the assessee and the circumstances explained, we find it appropriate to adopt a liberal approach and condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO for Assessment Year 2016–17 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 23.03.2022. However, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, as explained while seeking condonation of delay, due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, he could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings.
Page 4 of 6 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and therefore, the assessee could not properly prosecute his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that, in order to justify his claims and to support the contentions raised before the Ld. AO, the assessee now intends to produce certain additional evidences which were not earlier produced before the Ld. AO. Hence, it was prayed that, instead of remanding the issue to the Ld. CIT(A), the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and opposed the remand.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On careful consideration, we observe that the assessee could not prosecute his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance on the part of the counsel who failed to appear during the appellate proceedings. In such circumstances, and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to present his case on merits. We further find that the assessee now seeks to produce certain documents and evidences which were not earlier placed before the Ld. AO. Hence, we are of the considered view that the issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Ld. AO. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication of the issue as per law. The Ld. AO is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file
Page 5 of 6 all necessary evidences, documents, and submissions in support of his claim. The assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate fully in the proceedings before the Ld. AO.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.