VENKATA HANUMANTHA RAO YAKA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1080/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing or considering the condonation of delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter, directing the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay dated 27.06.2025 and decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer for AY 2018-19, sold immovable property worth Rs. 55 lakhs. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 147/148, but the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices, leading to a best judgment assessment where Rs. 55 lakhs was added as short-term capital gain. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a 135-day delay in filing and the absence of a condonation of delay petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the condonation of delay and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G

Hearing: 01.09.2025Pronounced: 04.09.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Venkata Hanumantha The Income Tax Officer, Rao Yaka, Hyderabad. Ward – 15 (1), PIN – 500 091. vs. Hyderabad. PAN AGEPR5547F Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : MS. S. Sandhya, Advocate For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :

The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order dated 24.04.2025 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2018-2019.

2 ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-2019. As per the information available with the Department in NMS Module of Insight Portal under Non-filer, the assessee has sold immovable property amounting to Rs.55,00,000/-. On the basis of the above information, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, a show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] was issued to the assessee, with the prior approval of the Competent Authority, to file his submissions along with relevant documentary evidences. However, there were no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment in the case of the assessee u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued notice u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.04.2022 calling the assessee to file his submissions with relevant documentary evidences. Since the assessee did not response to the said notice, the Assessing Officer issued notices 3 ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various dates which is evident from page-2 of the assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that, the assessee has filed his return of income on 24.05.2022 declaring Rs.NIL income. Further, the assessee has filed part information in response to notice issued u/sec.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and seek time to submit full information. Accordingly, time was granted by the Assessing Officer. Again, there were no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued an intimation letter on 30.01.2023 and notice u/sec.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.09.2023, but, the assessee chose to remain non-complaint. Further, the Assessing Officer has also issued show cause notices dated 09.01.2024 and 17.02.2024. Since, the assessee did not respond to none of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer including the show cause notices, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs.55,00,000/- on sale of immovable property as short term capital gain and added back to it’s total income and 4 ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 completed the assessment by his best Judgment assessment order u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.03.2024.

3.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 135 days. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not file petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine in terms of sec.249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

MS. S. Sandhya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, explained the reasons for not appearing before the learned CIT(A) and also not filing petition for condonation of delay and according to the Counsel for the Assessee, the assessee was suffering from ailment and taking treatment and because, of this reason, the assessee could not respond to the single notice issued by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) without giving further opportunity, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. Therefore, she submitted that, 5 ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 one more opportunity may please be provided to the assessee by remitting the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

5.

Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the Assessing Officer did not appear before the Assessing Officer despite several notices were issued to him. Further, even during the course of First Appellate Proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not chose to appear nor filed any submissions either on merits of the issue or for condonation of delay. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in view of lackadaisical approach of the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

6.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the learned CIT(A) without giving further opportunity, dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without 6 ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 condoning the delay. In our considered view, opportunity of hearing means, a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain it’s case. In the present case, although, the learned CIT(A) stated in his order that, the case was fixed and notice u/sec.250 of the Act were issued, but, there is no reference of any date of issue of notice. Since the learned CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee, without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in our considered view, the issue needs to be set-aside to the file of learned CIT(A). Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to consider the petition filed by the assessee dated 27.06.2025 for condonation of delay and decide the appeal in accordance with law, by providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

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

7 ITA.No.1080/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →