MUKUNDLAL BAHETI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 244/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2016-176 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 Tribunal considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit and medical records furnished by the assessee. While the assessee had provided prescriptions and MRI reports related to his back pain in 2023, the Tribunal found that he had not substantiated a continuous incapacity or bedridden condition covering the entire 751-day delay period. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative failed to demonstrate that the assessee was bedridden and incapable of initiating legal proceedings during the full period of the delay. The Tribunal was of the considered opinion that the reasons cited by the assessee were not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay and did not inspire confidence that the assessee was diligently pursuing the matter. The delay was deemed excessive and unexplained for substantial periods. Therefore, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mukundlal Baheti, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated November 29, 2022, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 751 days. The assessee attributed this delay to prolonged medical treatment for acute low back pain from January 2023 onwards, claiming to be under complete bed rest and unable to access the Income-Tax portal. The delay came to light in February 2025 when the Income-Tax department started reminding the assessee about the demand. The assessee contacted his Chartered Accountant, who then informed him of the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee consulted an advocate on February 16, 2025, and filed the appeal electronically on February 17, 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 751 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned on account of the assessee's medical condition? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control, specifically his medical condition requiring prolonged treatment and bed rest from January 2023 onwards. He submitted an affidavit and medical records to support his claim of incapacity to access the portal and initiate legal proceedings. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of justice. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue strongly objected to the condonation petition, arguing that the delay of 751 days was inordinate and unexplained. They contended that the CIT(A)'s order was available on the Income Tax portal, and there was no valid reason for the assessee or his representative not to have tracked the proceedings. The Revenue further submitted that the assessee was non-compliant even before the CIT(A) and that the medical reasons advanced did not establish continuous incapacity throughout the entire delay period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Abhinav Pitta, SR-DR

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Mukundlal Baheti (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 29.11.2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17.

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 751 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 01.04.2025, explaining the reasons for such delay. The reasons given by the assessee as per the affidavit is to the following effect :

As per the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he was under prolonged medical treatment for acute low back pain from January 2023 onwards, and remained under the supervision of multiple doctors including those from Walk-in Clinics, Centre for Orthopaedics & Trauma, and Apollo Hospitals. The assessee claimed to be under complete bed rest and incapable of accessing the Income-tax portal to verify the status of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed only after he was made aware of the appellate order in February 2025.

The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) argued that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, specifically his medical condition, and prayed for condonation of the delay in the interest of justice.

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly objected to the condonation petition and submitted that the delay of 751 days is inordinate and unexplained. It was pointed out that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was made available on the Income Tax portal and there was no valid reason for the assessee or his representative not to have kept track of the proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee was non-compliant even before the Ld. CIT(A) and the medical reasons now advanced do not establish a continuous incapacity throughout the entire delay period.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit and medical records furnished by the assessee. It is noted that while the assessee has placed on record prescriptions and MRI reports pertaining to his back pain in 2023, he has not been able to substantiate continuous incapacity or bedridden condition covering the entire delay period 751 days. Although the assessee contends that he was under severe medical distress, the Ld. AR has failed to demonstrate that the assessee was bedridden and incapable of initiating legal proceedings during the full period of 751 days, so as to prevent the filing of the appeal.

In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons cited by the assessee are not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay, and do not inspire confidence that the assessee was diligently pursuing the matter. The delay is excessive and unexplained for substantial periods. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →