SALAHUDDIN MOHAMMED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the condonation petition and the supporting medical documents filed by the assessee. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee had indeed undergone major cardiac surgery and was under continuous medical supervision during the relevant period. The assessee, being a senior citizen aged 74 years, was reasonably incapacitated from attending to regular matters owing to his medical condition. In our view, the said circumstances constitute

Page 2 of 6 a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025, has held that a justice- oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Applying the above ratio, we are satisfied that the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal was due to genuine medical reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Considering also the assessee’s advanced age, we hold that the explanation offered is reasonable and supported by evidence. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the Facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent which is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) should have provided an opportunity of bearing heard by issuing a hearing notice before issuing the order under section 250 of the Act.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have accepted the condonation of delay in filing the appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal merely due to a delay in filing the appeal without even considering the facts and merits of the case. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. A.O has erred in concluding INR 1,08,97,655 /- as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and adding the same under the head ‘Income from other Sources’.

6. The appellant craves for leave to add, to delete from or amend the 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 assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.04.2023. There was, however, a delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Without condoning the said delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly explained the reasons for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), stating that he was completely unfamiliar with the assessment proceedings conducted electronically, and being unaware of the online compliance system, could not take steps in time. It was further explained that when the assessee later approached a Chartered Accountant for assistance, he was advised to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, by that time, the limitation period had expired. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen of 74 years, suffering from old-age ailments and not well acquainted with online procedures, and hence, the delay was purely on account of ignorance and old age. It was therefore pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before

Page 4 of 6 the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the matter be restored for decision on merits.