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

Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.A., the learned Authorized Representative (for short ‘Ld. AR’) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the captioned appeal involves a delay of 8 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had occasioned due to the negligence and lack of proper tracking of notices by the before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee who is a small time dairy farmer remained under a bonafide belief that he would be provided an opportunity to present additional documents and clarification before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that it was due to the negligence of the assessee’s tax consultant that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide an ex-parte order for want of prosecution. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee on learning about the dismissal of his appeal had without any further loss of time preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal which by the time involved a delay of 8 days. The Ld. AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the present appeal was not inordinate and had occasioned for no fault on the part of the assessee, therefore, the same in all fairness be condoned.

Shri Rajan Agrawala, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short ‘Ld. DR’) did not raise any objection to the seeking of the condonation of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties qua the issue of delay involved in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an “affidavit” dated 10.03.2025, wherein it is deposed by him that he had entrusted the case to a consultant for handling the appeal before the CIT(A), but due to the consultant’s negligence in not tracking the notices and carry out necessary compliances that he had suffered the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution by the first appellate authority. The assessee has further deposed that he had remained under a bona fide belief that he would get an opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A), and had after learning about the dismissal of the appeal promptly filed the present appeal. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that as there are justifiable reasons leading to the delay of 8 days in filing of the present appeal, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 6. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on the information that the assessee had during the subject year purchased a house property for a consideration of Rs.10.92 lacs but had not filed his return of income, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income on 21.02.2022 declaring an income of Rs.1,71,220/-. As the return of income filed by the assessee after 11 months, therefore, the same was treated as non-est by the A.O. Thereafter, the A.O. vide multiple notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act called upon the assessee to place on record certain information/documents. As the assessee failed to comply with aforementioned notices, 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. 7. As is discernible from the record, the assessee at the fag end of the assessment proceedings had filed with the AO certain information/explanation. It was the assessee’s claim that he along with another co-owner had vide a registered sale deed dt.14.10.2010 purchased a residential plot for a consideration of Rs.20,74,850/-, viz. (i) purchase consideration: Rs.19,30,000/-; and (ii). registration charges: Rs.1,44,850/-. The assessee to fortify the aforesaid factual position had filed in the course of the assessment proceedings a copy of the purchase deed of the subject property. Elaborating further, it was the assessee’s claim that the aforementioned co-owner had thereafter executed a “release deed” for the assessee’s 50% share in the subject property that was purchased way back on 14.10.2010. The copy of the “release deed” dated 06.08.2012. The assessee based on the aforesaid facts, had claimed before the A.O. that he had not purchased the subject property during the Financial Year 2012-13. It was claimed by him that the co-owner of the property had executed the “release deed” for the assessee’s share of property so that peaceful possession of the same may be enjoyed. The assessee based on the aforesaid facts tried to impress upon the A.O. that as he had purchased the subject property for a consideration of Rs.9.65 lacs during the F.Y. 2010-11, therefore, no adverse inferences based on the “release deed” executed by his co-owner was liable to be drawn in so far the subject year under consideration was concerned. However, the A.O. did not find favour with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. It was observed by him that a perusal of the “release deed” dated 06.08.2012 revealed beyond doubt that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs.9.65 lacs (supra) in cash to the releaser for getting one-half of the property. Accordingly, the A.O. holding a conviction that the assessee had during the year under consideration made a cash payment of Rs.9.65 lacs (supra) out of amount u/s 69 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success. As the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter holding a conviction that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal dismissed the same on the said count itself. 9. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 11. Shri Pankaj Sancheti, 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) has grossly erred in law and facts of the case in summarily dismissing the appeal based on a non-speaking order. The ld.AR to fortify his contention had taken us through the observations of the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that as the CIT(A) had failed to advert to the specific issues involved in the appeal and disposed of the same count itself. 12. Per contra, Shri Rajan Agrawala, Senior Departmental Representative (for short Ld. DR) relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 13. As observed by us hereinabove, the CIT(A) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issues which did arise from the impugned order and was assailed by the assessee before him. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the manner in which the appeal of the assessee had been disposed off by the CIT(A). In our considered view, once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), it becomes obligatory on his part to dispose off the same on merit and it is not open for him to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non- prosecution of the same by the assessee. Rather, a perusal of Sec.251(1)(a) and (b), as well as the “Explanation” to Sec.251(2) of the Act reveals that the CIT(A) remains under a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him. As per the mandate of the law the CIT(A) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under:

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA No.406/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 16. 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. 2013-14 in ITA No.405/Hyd/2025, therefore, the order therein passed shall apply mutatis mutandis for disposing of the present appeal i.e ITA No.406/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16. 17. In the result, both the captioned appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. 16th अप्रैल 2025 को खुली अदालत में सुनाया गया आदेश। Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th April, 2025. (श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER d/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 16.04.2025. ***#TYNM/sps

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. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file