SURESH MADAMANCHI,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had filed Form No.35 before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein in the personal information section the assessee had specifically declined communication through email. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not conversant with online proceedings and therefore had opted not to receive communications through email. It was submitted that despite the specific request made by the assessee in Form No.35 declining communication through email, the notices issued during the appellate proceedings as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) were communicated electronically and no physical notice was served upon the assessee. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and also of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order only when the revenue initiated recovery proceedings for the outstanding demand. Immediately thereafter, the assessee made enquiries and approached tax consultants dealing with appellate matters before this Tribunal and thereafter filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 30.08.2025. Due to the above circumstances, there occurred a delay of 577 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the assessee. It was therefore 3. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is a commission agent engaged in arranging sale of agricultural produce under licence granted by the Agricultural Market Committee, Warangal. The assessee collects agricultural produce from farmers and sells the same to traders on commission basis and deposits the sale proceeds in his bank account which are subsequently remitted to the farmers after deducting commission. However, without appreciating the nature of the assessee’s activity, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) treated the entire bank receipts as income of the assessee. It was therefore submitted that the assessment is highly disproportionate and amounts to a high- pitched assessment, and therefore also the delay deserves to be condoned so that the matter can be adjudicated on merits. 4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 577 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for such delay. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the petition for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed by the assessee. We have also gone through the personal information section of Form No.35 filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect: 6. On perusal of above, it is evident that the assessee had specifically mentioned that he was not willing to receive communication through email as he was not conversant with online proceedings. Despite such specific declaration, the notices during the appellate proceedings as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) appear to have been communicated electronically. No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to establish that the said communications were also served physically upon the assessee. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the assessee that he came to know about the passing of the appellate order only when recovery proceedings were initiated by the revenue appears to be plausible. Immediately thereafter the assessee has approached tax consultants and filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It is well settled that while considering a petition for condonation of delay, the courts should adopt a liberal approach so that substantial justice is advanced. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, considering the facts and circumstances explained by the assessee and Suresh Madamanchi vs. ITO Page 5 of 8

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017–18 against the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 14.12.2019. However, during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. The contention of the assessee before us is that in Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had specifically declined communication through email as he was not conversant with online proceedings. However, the notices during the appellate proceedings appear to have been issued through email and no physical notices were served upon the assessee. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the assessee that he did not receive the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) appears to be plausible. Further, it is also the contention of the assessee that he could not produce all the relevant documents before the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings in support of his claims. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld. AO is directed to examine the claim of the assessee afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also granted liberty to file all necessary documentary evidence in support of his claims. At the same time, the assessee is directed to co-operate Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Suresh Madamanchi, 16-5-309, UNDERBRIDGE ROAD, PERUKAWADA, WARANGAL, Warangal, Telangana-506002 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL, Telangana 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File