GUNTI SURESH KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 June 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member)8 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was not liable to be condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not explained any sufficient reasons for such an inordinate delay. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee was aware of the demand raised, as evidenced by the filing of a revised return on 03.05.2017, which itself was beyond the statutory time limit for filing a revised return under Section 139(5) for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee could not show any cogent reason for the belated filing of the appeal. The ITAT emphasized that the period of limitation has to be construed strictly and that condoning delays in a mechanical manner would jeopardize the legislative intent. Relying on the principle laid down in Amar Shakti Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the ITAT held that delay on account of pursuing an alternate remedy or due to gross negligence is not a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249(3). Therefore, the ITAT found no error or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. The appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Gunti Suresh Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 29/10/2024 passed by the learned CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was filed with a delay of 25 days. The assessee explained this delay by stating that their authorized representative was engaged in filing GST annual returns for multiple clients, leading to a backlog. The ITAT, taking a lenient view, condoned this delay. However, the primary issue before the ITAT was the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed due to a delay of 2014 days in filing. The assessee had sought condonation of this significant delay before the CIT(A), citing unawareness of the demand until 15.02.2022 and confusion between financial and assessment years when filing the original return.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14 is liable to be condoned under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to genuine hardship, as they were unaware of the demand until 15.02.2022. Upon receiving the demand, they immediately raised grievances. They also contended that the incorrect particulars in the return were a clerical mistake due to confusion between financial and assessment years, and a revised return was filed on 03.05.2017. The demand of Rs. 24,51,030/- was incorrect and disproportionate. They relied on judicial precedents allowing reasonable cause for delay. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the learned DR, did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the delay condonation before the ITAT, but the CIT(A)'s order, which the ITAT was reviewing, had rejected the condonation. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee was aware of the demand as a revised return was filed on 03.05.2017, which was also beyond the time limit under Section 139(5). The CIT(A) also referred to Section 249(2) and (3) of the Act and the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the case of Amar Shakti Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhatinda.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 139(5),Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 249(2),Section 249(3),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Gunti Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12(1) PAN:BYKPS6071G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri Sai Kumar, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER

Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 3 Mumbai, for the A.Y.2013-14.

2.

There is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit by the assessee.

3.

We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR for condonation of delay and perused the contends in the affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal in para 2 to 4 of the affidavit as under:

3. Accordingly, by considering the reasons as explained by the assessee for delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal and taking a lenient view, we condone the said delay in filing the appeal.

4.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

5.

We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and carefully perused the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). There was a delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the learned CIT (A) as not maintainable being barred by limitation. The learned AR of the assessee has reiterated its contention as raised before the learned

Page 3 of 8 CIT (A) which are reproduced in para 6 of the impugned order as under:

6.

The assessee has not explained any reason much less the sufficient reasons for such inordinate delay of around six years in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in para 7.1 to 7.5 as under:

7.

In the absence of any reasonable cause to justify such an inordinate delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A), the prayer of the assessee is not acceptable because of unsatisfactory and unjustified reasons for such delay. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →