MAHESH YADAV ALAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 405/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 April 2025AY 2013-1411 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal was justifiable due to the consultant's negligence and the assessee's bonafide belief, and therefore, it should be condoned. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Citing Section 250 and Section 251 of the Act and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to decide appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with the AO, and they must apply their mind to all issues arising from the impugned order. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de-novo decision on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to present documentary evidence. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mahesh Yadav Alam, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi. These orders arose from assessments made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2015-16. The AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on information that the assessee purchased a house property for Rs. 10.92 lacs but had not filed a return. The assessee filed a return late, which was treated as non-est. Despite notices, the assessee failed to comply, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The assessee claimed a property was purchased in 2010, with a co-owner releasing their share in 2012 for Rs. 9.65 lacs cash, which the AO added as unexplained investment under Section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal for AY 2013-14 should be condoned, considering the assessee's claim of consultant negligence and bonafide belief of presenting further documents before the CIT(A)? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and facts by summarily dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, instead of deciding it on merits as per statutory obligations under Section 250 and Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay of 8 days was due to the negligence of the tax consultant and the assessee's bonafide belief that he would get an opportunity to present documents before the CIT(A). - The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without applying his mind to the issues, relying on the judgment in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). Revenue's Contentions: - No objection was raised to the condonation of delay. - Relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 69,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 142(1),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2),Section 250,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Mahesh Yadav Alam, 5-3-110/3, Yapral, Secunderabad – 500087, Telangana. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward –15(1), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →