SANJEEVA REDDY SIRIGIRI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, NALGONDA

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessment order was passed on 28.11.2019, but the assessee was residing outside India at Botswana during the period 23.09.2019 to 11.01.2021. The assessee was therefore unaware of the assessment proceedings as well as the order passed by the Ld. AO. In support, the Ld. AR furnished a copy of the assessee’s passport evidencing his stay outside India. It was further explained that the assessee’s wife returned to India on 11.09.2020, at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. After completing the required 14 days of home isolation, she visited their bank, where she was informed by bank officials that the bank account of her husband had been attached by the revenue authorities. Only then did the assessee come to know about the assessment order. Thereafter, immediate steps were taken to file the appeal, which was finally filed on 28.10.2020 before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee’s control. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay of 433 days be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the condonation of such a long delay. She submitted that the assessee was negligent in not filing the return of income and not complying with statutory notices. Even after coming to know about the assessment, there was further delay in filing the appeal. Hence, she supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The chronology of events shows that the assessment order was passed on 28.11.2019, whereas the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) only on 28.10.2020, resulting in a delay of 433 days. On perusal of the assessee’s passport, placed before us, it is evident that he was continuously residing outside India at Botswana from 23.09.2019 to 11.01.2021. Therefore, he could not have received the assessment order directly nor taken immediate steps to file the appeal. The explanation that the assessee’s wife, upon returning to India during the Covid pandemic in September 2020, came to know about the attachment of the bank account and thereafter took steps to file the appeal, appears bona fide and is corroborated by documentary evidence. 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. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 433 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation, we restore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.