GANDHI PEDAPUDI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 65/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 202 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, filed an appeal before the ITAT after the CIT(A) dismissed his appeal due to the assessee's failure to prosecute the case. The delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was 202 days, attributed to the assessee not receiving notices due to an outdated email ID.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 06/02/2025

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Gandhi Pedapudi, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN:AMQPP9539F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: K. Prabhabati, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Harshita Chouhan, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 06/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Gandhi Pedapudi (“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 10.04.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, it is seen that there was delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before us. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit explaining the reason for the delay, which is to the following effect :

On the basis of the reason given in affidavit, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) prayed before the bench for condonation of delay.

3.

After considering the reasons for the delay and after hearing the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”), we are of the opinion that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before us. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the apepal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

The assessee has raised the following grounds :

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist, filed his Return of Income (“ROI”) for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 20.06.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,42,790/- besides agricultural income of Rs.10,24,300/. The assessment of the assessee was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 30.12.2019 by accepting the ROI. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act to verify the agriculture income of Rs.10,24,300/-. The Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 making addition of Rs.5,12,150/- out of the agriculture income of Rs.10,24,300/-.

6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not prosecute his case on merits. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

7. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that, as explained in the condonation petition for delay in filing the appeal before ITAT, the assessee did not come to know about the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the assessee could not prosecute his case on merits before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that, the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the appeal to be disposed of without any documentary evidence being produced and it is only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee could not produce the necessary documents/evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) to prosecute his case. By consolidating all the grounds, he further submitted that, given an opportunity, the assessee is now ready to produce all such details and conduct the proceedings diligently and get the matter disposed of on merits.

8. Per contra, Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. He opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.

9.

We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee failed to substantiate his case by providing necessary documentary evidence, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. However as submitted by the Ld. AR, non prosecution on the part of the assessee was only due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Further, it is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Be that as it may, now the assessee is ready to produce all such documentary evidence in support of their contentions and get the matter disposed of on merits. The highest that would happen by allowing an opportunity to the assessee is that a cause would be decided on merits. With this view of the matter and considering the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that fresh opportunity should be given to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal

are answered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →