PADMAVATHI MORTHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

At the very outset, there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal

Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly object to the reasons explained by the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for the 3 ITA.No.704/Hyd./2025 delay in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit before the Tribunal. We are satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and, therefore, condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income, declaring a sum of Rs.7,35,780/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for E-Assessment scheme on the ground of large cash deposits in bank account and assessee has also purchased/sold one or more properties during the year under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.143(2) on 28.06.2022, and various notices u/sec.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 22.07.2022, 24.09.2022, 13.10.2022, 14.11.2022 and 24.11.2022 to furnish explanation along with supporting documentary evidences in respect of property sold amounting to Rs.1,64,56,000/- and cash deposit in Axis Bank amounting to Rs.10,79,600/- and Rs.12,49,000/- in HDFC Bank Limited, in total Rs.1,87,84,600/-. However, the assessee

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer. During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued notices u/sec.250 of the Act on 12.07.2024, 01.08.2024 and 26.09.2024 to the registered email ID mentioned in Form-35. However, the assessee did not file any reply/documentary evidences in support of it’s claim nor filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A), in 5 ITA.No.704/Hyd./2025 absence of filing the appeal in prescribed manner, prescribed form and an incomplete Form-35, treated the appeal as an invalid and non-est appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal.

CA, Sai Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the assessee could not file complete details before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings because, the show cause notice issued for proposing various additions in respect of capital gain and addition under section 69A of the Act, were served on the Tax Consultant which were not forwarded to the assessee. Further, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for not filing the application for condonation of delay and not discussed the issues and merits. The Counsel for the Assessee explained the reasons for not appearing before the Assessing Officer and not filing the complete details and according to the Counsel for the Assessee, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, were 6 ITA.No.704/Hyd./2025 received by the Tax Consultant which were not forwarded to the assessee and due to this reason the, assessee could not respond to the Assessing Officer with complete details. Further, the assessee had explained the transactions reported in his PAN and explained that, it is a purchase of property, but, not sales. But, the Assessing Officer has computed the capital gain and made addition because, there were no complete details before the Assessing Officer. Before the learned CIT(A), although, there is a delay in filing of the appeal, but, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee once again for not filing application for condonation of delay, without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has violated the principals of natural justice, which requires reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal. Since the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as non-est for not filing application for condonation of delay that too without providing sufficient opportunity and further the Assessing Officer has made

Sri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and during the course of appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has been provided with sufficient opportunities to substantiate her case, which is evident from the orders of the lower authorities. Since, the assessee has nothing to say, therefore, she did not file any documentary evidences in support of her claim. Therefore, the issue under appeal is not fit to remit back to the file of Assessing Officer for further verification. He, therefore, submitted that, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

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