VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY CHALLA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मɅ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
BEFORE
SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 277/Hyd/2024
(Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2019-20)
Vijay Kumar Reddy
Challa,
Hyderabad.
[PAN : ABVPC7798M]
Vs.
DCIT,
Central Circle-3(4),
Hyderabad.
अपीलाथȸ / Appellant
Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent
Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by:
Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AR
राजè वɮवारा/Revenue by:
Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing:
26/12/2024
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on:
17/01/2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:
Aggrieved by the order dated 12/01/2024 passed by the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of The Vijaya Kumar Reddy Challa (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal.
Vijaya Kumar Reddy Challa
Page 2 of 4
It is noƟced from the record that there is a delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to condonaƟon of delay, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 28/05/2024 wherein the assessee explained that since he was out of staƟon during the period, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed Ɵme limit. On a perusal of the affidavit and the reasons advanced by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal, we are of the opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the sƟpulated Ɵme and therefore, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
At the outset, learned Authorized RepresentaƟve (“learned AR”) submiƩed that the assessment order was passed on 6/8/2021, during the COVID pandemic period and by the Ɵme itself there has been correspondence and the request of the assessee to consider the cash seized on 4/12/2018 to the tune of Rs. 45,00,000/- in terms of Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) Circular No. 20/2017, dated 12/06/2017 as a part of advance tax only and ulƟmately the request of the assessee for recƟficaƟon of the processing of return of income under secƟon 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was finally disposed of by order dated 15/11/2022 passed under secƟon 154 of the Act. Learned AR, therefore submiƩed that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order under secƟon 143(3) of the Act and it is only due to the prosecuƟon of the claim before the learned Assessing Officer (“learned AO”) by way of so many leƩers from 26/2/2021 to 10/11/2022, the assessee could not properly conduct his appeal. Learned AR submiƩed that the order under secƟon 154 of the Act was passed on 15/11/2022 whereas the assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by 23/2/2023, but the learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and disposed of the appeal ex-parte. 4. Learned Departmental RepresentaƟve (“learned DR”) vehemently opposed the condonaƟon peƟƟon and submiƩed that not only there was delay before the learned CIT(A) in preferring the appeal but also the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal diligently and he did not comply with Vijaya Kumar Reddy Challa Page 3 of 4
the noƟces issued and therefore, the learned CIT(A) had no opƟon but to decide the appeal ex-parte.
5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The plea of the assessee as to prosecuƟng the claim to consider the cash of Rs. 45,00,000/- seized on 4/12/2018 as a part of advance tax in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 20/2017 (supra) remains un-contradicted and ulƟmately such maƩer was disposed of by order dated 15/11/2022. Assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by 23/2/2022. In view of the plea of the assessee that due to the prosecuƟon of the maƩer before the learned AO on the very same aspect as that was involved in the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not present his appeal before the learned CIT(A) within Ɵme and could not bestow his aƩenƟon to the First Appellate Proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that giving an opportunity, on the condiƟon of the assessee paying cost of ₹ 5000/-to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, the assessee would meet the ends of jusƟce.
6. With this view of the maƩer, we set-aside the impugned order and to restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. Assessee is directed to be diligent in geƫng the appeal disposed of on merits. Grounds are answered accordingly.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for staƟsƟcal purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th January, 2025. (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 17/01/2025
OKK
Vijaya Kumar Reddy Challa
Page 4 of 4