Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the CIT(A) which arose from reassessment orders passed by the AO under Section 147. The core issue involves the addition of sale consideration from two property transactions as short-term capital gains.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the first transaction (Rs. 21,00,000) had substance, as the AO erred in not considering the cost of acquisition and related expenses. For the second transaction (Rs. 20,30,000), the Tribunal found substance in the assessee's claim that the property did not belong to him. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the AO was justified in treating the entire sale consideration of two properties as short-term capital gains without considering the cost of acquisition and related expenses, and whether one of the transactions actually pertained to the assessee.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(1), 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 50C, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of 2 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20-09-2024, 20-09-2024, and 18.12.2024, which in turn arise from the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), dated 24-03-2022, for A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2015-16, and A.Y. 2016-17, respectively. As common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of vide this consolidated order.
We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 in wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. The impugned order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ought to have granted opportunity by adhering to principles of natural justice before dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist and thereby issuing the notice under section 148 was not present under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
4. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is very vague and the learned assessing officer has not specified as regard to which limb he has issued the notice whether to assessee or reassess the income of the appellant and consequential proceeding becomes bad in law.
The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that, if at all any reasons are recorded for re-opening of assessment amount by the learned assessing officer it may amount to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe and the said reason do not constitute belief, under the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The learned Authorities below ought to have appreciated the fact that no proper procedure has been followed by the learned assessing officer for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, as envisaged in the statute. 7. The appellant denies himself liable to assessed on a total income of Rs. 43,42,150/-, as against the income returned an amount being Rs. 2,12,150/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 41,30,000/-, undisclosed short term capital gain, under section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Authorities below are failed to appreciate the fact that the document no. 6175/2015 date of transaction 31/10/2012, does not belong to the Appellant, and addition of Rs. 20,30,000/-, is bad in law, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.”
4 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring an income of Rs.2,12,150/- along with agricultural income of Rs.3,26,980/-
The A.O. based on information that the assessee had though during the subject year sold two immovable properties for a consideration of Rs.41.30 lacs, viz., (i) vide registered sale deed dated 31-10-2012 (Document No.7438/2012) - for Rs.21 lacs; and (ii) vide registered sale deed dated 31-10-2012 (Document No.6175/2015) - for Rs.20.30 lacs; but had not disclosed the income arising on sale of the said properties in his return of income, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31-03-2021, was issued to the assessee which remained uncompiled with. Apart from that, the notices issued by the A.O. under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 17-12-2021 and 11-02-2022, wherein the assessee was inter alia called upon to furnish details pertaining to the sale transaction of the subject properties, viz., date of acquisition of the property; cost of acquisition; cost of improvement, etc., were also not complied with by the assessee. As the assessee had failed to respond to the notices issued by the A.O., therefore, the latter was constrained to 5 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, dated 24-03-2022 in the absence of details of the requisite details, viz. cost of acquisition and improvement pertaining to the subject property, held the entire amount of sale consideration of the subject properties aggregating to Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) as Short-Term Capital Gain (STCG) and made an addition of the same to the returned income of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the appeal filed by the assessee involved a delay of 476 days, but the same in all fairness was condoned by the CIT(A). Apropos the merits of the case, the assessee had both assailed the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as well as challenged the addition of Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) on merits. The CIT(A) did not find favour with the contention of the assessee as regards the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O. for initiating proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and approved the same. Apropos the merits of the case, the assessee
6 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy had assailed the addition of Rs.41.30 lacs made by the A.O. on two-fold grounds, viz., (i) that the addition regarding sale transaction of property carried out vide Document No.6175/2015 for a consideration of Rs.20.30 lacs did not belong/pertain to the assessee; and (ii) that as regards the addition pertaining to the sale transaction of property carried out vide Document No.7438/2012 for a consideration of Rs.21 lacs, the A.O. had grossly erred in not considering the cost of acquisition and related expenses while computing the income under the head 'Capital Gains'. However, neither of the aforesaid claims of the assessee on merits fond favour with the CIT(A). For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A) qua the aforesaid issues are culled out as under:
“5.6.3 With regard to the addition of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Document No. 7438/2012): The assessee claims that the property was ancestral and that the AO should have considered the cost of acquisition and related expenses while computing the capital gains. Despite multiple notices, the assessee failed to submit any supporting documents such as purchase deeds, cost records, or expense invoices. Under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, if the assessee fails to substantiate the cost of acquisition/improvement, the full sale consideration becomes taxable as short-term capital gains. Hence, the AO was justified in treating Rs. 21,00,000/- as taxable income. 5.6.4 With regard to the addition of Rs. 20,30,000/- (Document No. 6175/2015): The assessee asserts that this transaction did not belong to him. However, the AO relied on official records linking the property transaction to the assessee's PAN and income records. The assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove that the transaction pertained to someone
7 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy else. Since property sale records maintained by the registrar's office showed the assessee's PAN, and in the absence of contrary evidence, the AO was justified in treating Rs. 20,30,000/- as the assessee's undisclosed income.”
Accordingly, the CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeal.
The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and the material available on record.
Shri Pavan Kumar Chakrapani, C.A., Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that both the lower authorities had grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in making/sustaining the addition of Rs.41.30 lacs (supra) as Short- term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the impugned sale transaction dated 31-10-2012, carried out vide Document No.6175/2015 for Rs.20.30 lacs (supra), did not pertain to the assessee, therefore, there was no justification for the lower
8 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy authorities to have made addition as regards the same in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that insofar as the sale transaction of the property carried out vide Document No.7438/2012 dated 31-10-2012 for Rs.21 lacs is concerned, the A.O. had grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in not considering the cost of acquisition of the subject property and the related expenses while computing the capital gains arising on the transfer of the same in the hands of the assessee. It was, thus, the Ld. AR's claim that the A.O. had grossly erred in treating the entire sale consideration of Rs.21 lacs (supra) as the Short-term Capital Gain arising on the transfer of the aforementioned property.
The Ld. AR on being confronted with the fact that it was for the assessee's failure to participate in the proceedings before the lower authorities, which had resulted into ex-parte orders, submitted that the same had occasioned for the reason that the assessee, being an uneducated person, was not at all conversant about the ongoing proceedings before the said respective authorities. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the assessee was not served with any notice in 9 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy the course of the assessment proceedings, it was for the said reason that he could not participate and put forth his case before the A.O. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had remained under a bona fide belief that his appeal was being properly looked after by the counsel engaged by him, but it was on account of the latter's negligence that he had suffered the dismissal of the same vide an ex-parte order. The Ld. AR submitted that as a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities revealed beyond doubt the serious perversity that had therein crept viz., (i) that the assessee had been saddled with taxes for a sale transaction of a property which does not belong to him; and (ii) that the entire amount of sale consideration of the property sold by the assessee had been held as his income under the head “Capital Gain”, therefore, the matter, in all fairness, deserves to be restored to the file of the A.O. with a direction to him to re- adjudicate the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Per contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short the “Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
10 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
We have thoughtfully considered the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities.
Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee in the course of the proceedings, both before the A.O. and CIT(A), had apparently adopted a lackadaisical approach, due to which he had been visited with ex-parte orders. At the same time, we cannot remain oblivion of the fact that the A.O. based on the information that was received by him under the High-risk CRIU/VRU on the insight portal of the department, had held the entire sale consideration of the property transferred by the assessee vide Sale Deed Document No.7438 of 2012, dated 31-10- 2012 to tax as the income of the assessee under the head "Short- term Capital Gain". Apart from that, the claim of the Ld. AR that the transaction of sale of property carried out, vide registered Sale Deed Document No.6175 of 2015 dated 31-10-2012 for Rs.20.30 lacs, had wrongly been brought to tax in his hands despite the fact that the said property does not belong to him, cannot be summarily brushed aside. Although, we are of the view that the assessee ought to have remained vigilant in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities, but at the same time find
11 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy substance in the Ld. AR's claim that the failure on the assessee’s part to comply with the notices had occasioned due to bona fide reasons, as he had remained unaware of the proceedings before both the lower authorities.
Be that as it may, we are of a firm conviction that there is substance in the Ld. AR’s two-fold claim, viz. (i). the entire sale consideration of the property transferred by the assessee vide Sale Deed Document No.7438 of 2012, dated 31-10-2012 could not have been brought to tax as his income under the head "Short- term Capital Gain"; and (ii). that if the property sold vide Document No.6175/2015, dated 31-10-2012 for Rs.20.30 lacs (supra), did not belong to the assessee, then there was no justification for making any addition as regards the same in his hands. We thus, are of the view that the matter, in all fairness and in the interests of justice, requires to be revisited by the A.O. The A.O. is directed to re-adjudicate both the aforesaid issues after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall, in the course of the set-aside proceedings, remain at liberty to substantiate his claims/ contentions based on fresh documentary evidence, if any.
12 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
ITA No.1244/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16
We shall now take up the assessee’s appeal for A.Y 2015-16.
Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on information that the assessee had, during the subject year, sold three immovable properties for an aggregate sale consideration of Rs.1.40 crore viz., (i). On 25.04.2014 vide Document No.3011/2014 for Rs.1,00,00,000/-; (ii). On 25.04.2014 vide Document No.6158 /2014 for Rs.16,70,000/-; and (iii) On 27.10.2014 vide Document No.6400/2014 for Rs.23,30,000/-, but had not filed his return of income for the subject year, thus, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. As the assessee, despite having been given sufficient opportunity, neither filed his return of income in compliance with the notice under Section 148 of the Act, nor filed the requisite details, as were called for vide notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the A.O. was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act, dated
13 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy 24-03-2022, held the entire amount of sale consideration of the aforesaid three properties, aggregating to Rs.1.40 crores (supra), as the assessee’s income under the head “Short-Term Capital Gain” (STCG).
The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of A.O., carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal filed by the assessee involved a delay of 476 days, therefore, the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of the same. However, the CIT(A) did not find any substance in the assessee's explanation regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal and declined to condone the same. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(A), wherein he had rejected the assessee's request for condonation of the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine on the said count itself is culled out as under :
“Appellate decision:
5.0 The submissions filed by the Appellant are perused and the condonation of delay is decided accordingly. 5.1. The Appellant has claimed that the delay of 476 days in filing the appeal was due to unforeseen circumstances, including the sudden demise of the Income-tax Practitioner handling their returns and the subsequent need for new legal counsel. While the Appellant acted diligently in seeking professional advice and filing the appeal once counsel was secured, there was a significant delay. However, the Appellant has not provided the name of the deceased Practitioner or a death certificate to substantiate this claim. Additionally, the 14 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
Appellant's unfamiliarity with the Income-tax Portal does not excuse the delay, as the responsibility for timely filing rested with them 5.2 Furthermore, after the demise of the Practitioner, the Appellant did not take prompt action to find alternative counsel. This lack of urgency, combined with the excessive delay of 476 days, raises doubts about the reasons provided for the delay. The delay is considered excessive and unreasonable, especially since the Appellant was aware of the assessment order and the necessity to appeal. The reasoning that time was required to brief new counsel and decide on filing an appeal is not sufficient, as the Appellant had ample time to act. 5.3. It is a fact that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time. The law mandates that appeals be filed within a stipulated period, and belated appeals can only be condoned when sufficient cause is shown for the delay, with each day's delay explained. Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that rules of limitation are designed to prevent dilatory tactics and ensure that remedies are sought promptly. Therefore, each case must be examined individually, and in this case, the reasons provided do not justify condonation of the delay. 5.4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously, as seen in the rulings of Maji Sinnemma Vs Reddy Sridevi 2021 SSC online SC 1260 dated 16/12/2021 and Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram & Ors arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793/2019 dated 31/01/2023. It has been held that delay can only be condoned when sufficient cause is demonstrated, and negligence or lack of diligence is not excusable. While a liberal approach may be adopted to serve substantial justice, this cannot be done at the cost of disregarding statutory limitations. Therefore, the Appellants petition for condonation of delay is dismissed, as the reasons provided are insufficient. 5.5. In the present case, the Appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented him from filing the appeal for 476 days. From the facts of the case it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the Appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s. 249(3) of the Act. Thus, it is clearly a case of lapse and is a direct result of deliberate inaction on the part of the Appellant. Respectfully following the ratio in the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court supra, delay of 476 days in filing of appeal is not condoned. Since, the delay in filing of appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted.
15 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
6.0 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the decision of the Hon'ble Courts and also the fact that since the appeal of the Appellant is not admitted, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are not adjudicated on merit and the appeal is Dismissed.”
18. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.
We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of lower authorities and the material available on record.
Shri Pavan Kumar Chakrapani, C.A., the Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(A) had, most arbitrarily, without giving any cogent reason, declined the assessee's request for condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal in limine. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an uneducated person having no knowledge about the operation of the income tax portal. It was further submitted by him that the filing of the return of income of the assessee was being looked after by an Income-tax Practitioner (ITP), who, at the relevant point, was suffering from an ailment and had eventually passed
16 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy away some time back, i.e., even before the assessment order was passed by the A.O. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had learnt about the framing of the assessment only when he had received a call from the Income Tax Department for payment of taxes based on the high-pitched assessment that was framed in his case. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) had occasioned due to bona fide reasons and was not due to any lackadaisical approach or malafide conduct of the assessee, therefore, the CIT(A) in all fairness ought to have condoned the same and disposed of the appeal on merits. Additionally, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) while disposing of the assessee’s appeal for the preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 vide his order dated 18-12-2024, had condoned the delay of 476 days, which was based on the same set of facts as were there in the present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforementioned inconsistent approach adopted by the CIT(A), wherein he had condoned the delay in one year but declined to do so for the year in question cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated.
17 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
Per contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short the “Ld. D.R.”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by him that as the appeal filed by the assessee involved an inordinate delay, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly declined to condone the same. The Ld. D.R. to buttress his claim that the delay involved in filing of the appeal ought not to be condoned, had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements i.e., Divine Infracon (P.) Ltd Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2025) 171 Taxmann.com and P.K. Ramchandram Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276. It was, therefore, the Ld. D.R.'s claim that as the appeal filed by the assessee seeking the set-aside of the order passed by the CIT(A), who had declined to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal, is devoid of bereft of any substance, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
We have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities.
After giving a thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, viz., (i) that the 18 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy assessee is an uneducated person having no knowledge about the operation of the income tax portal and was entirely dependent upon his Income-tax Practitioner (ITP), who was regularly filing his returns of income; and (ii) the said Tax Consultant at the relevant time was suffering from certain medical ailment and had eventually passed away; therefore, the assessee had remained unaware about the framing of the assessment in his case, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) had occasioned for bonafide reasons and not on account of any lackadaisical approach or malafide conduct of the assessee. Apart from that, we are unable to comprehend that now the CIT(A) while disposing of the assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14, had, in all fairness, based on the same set of reasons, condoned the similar period of delay of 476 days which was involved in the assessee’s appeal for the said year, then, why he had adopted an inconsistent approach and declined to condone the same for the year in question, i.e. AY 2015-16?
Be that as it may, we are of the firm conviction that as not only there were justifiable reasons explaining the delay involved in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A), but rather
19 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy the said reasons had already been accepted by him while condoning the delay involved in the assessee's appeal for the preceding year i.e., A.Y 2013-14, therefore, he ought to have adopted a consistent approach and exercised the discretion that was vested in him under Section 249(3) of the Act and condoned the delay for a similar period of delay involved in the assessee's appeal for the subject year. Our conviction that the CIT(A) while considering the assessee’s application for condonation of the delay involved in the appeal filed before him ought to have adopted a justice oriented and liberal approach is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Specia Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid order had while setting aside the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of delay
20 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy involved in filing of the appeal. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and re-adjudicate the matter qua the merits of the case in the backdrop of the grounds raised by the assessee before him.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
As the facts and the issue involved in the present appeal remain the same as were there before us in the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 in therefore, the order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for disposing of the present appeal i.e A.Y. 2016-17.
In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.
21 ITA 321/Hyd/2025, ITA 1244/Hyd/2024 and ITA 1245/Hyd/2024 – Harinath Reddy Devireddy
To sum up, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.
23rd अप्रैल 2025 को खुली अदालत में सुनाया गया आदेश।
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd April, 2025.