PRAJYOTH KUMAR ADI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

3. The AO, based on the aforesaid facts, proceeded to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act.

4. The AO observed that the assessee during the subject year had sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,08,40,000/-. It was observed by him that the assessee had failed to offer the income arising on the sale of the aforementioned property to tax. The AO in absence of the requisite details regarding the aforesaid sale transaction held the entire amount of Rs.1,08,40,000/- as short term capital gains (STCG) on the sale of the subject property. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income regarding the aforesaid addition so made by him.

5. Apart from that, the AO made an addition of the interest received by the assessee of Rs.1,44,752/-. Also, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO in consequence of misreporting of income regarding the aforesaid addition.

6. Accordingly, the AO based on the aforesaid facts vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/12/2024 determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,09,84,752/-.

7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).

8. Ostensibly, the assessee had in the “Memorandum of Appeal” filed before us i.e., “Form-35” stated that the assessment order, dated 17/12/2024 was served upon him on 29/04/2025. Accordingly, the assessee based on his aforesaid declaration had stated that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was well within the prescribed time period contemplated under law.

9. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the aforesaid claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) taking cognizance of the fact that the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/12/2024 was duly served on the appellant on his registered email account, thus rejected his claim that the said order was served upon him on 29/04/2025. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations held that the assessee had delayed the filing of the appeal before him by 118 days, i.e., 3 months and 28 days. Thereafter, the CIT(A) holding a conviction that the assessee had failed to comeforth with any “sufficient cause” to explain the delay of 118 days in the filing of the Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO appeal filed before him, declined to exercise the discretion vested whim under sub-section (3) of section 249 of the Act and dismissed the appeal.

10. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

11. Shri P. Vinod, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the same involves a delay of 28 days. Elaborating on the reason leading to the delay, the Ld. AR submitted that the same had crept in for the reason that though the assessee had in his Memorandum of Appeal, i.e., “Form-35” given his email Id, i.e., padi.kumar@gmail.com for receiving notices/communication from the CIT(A) office, but the notices/communication from the latter’s office were dropped in a different email Id, viz., armurthyco@yahoo.co.in and kambalavst@gmail.com, i.e., other than that which was provided by him in Form-35. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had gathered about the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) only on 19/11/2025 when the Chartered Accountant of the assessee had logged into the portal to file a reply regarding the outstanding demand notice that was issued by the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee involving no further loss of time had thereafter immediately filed the present appeal which by the time involved a delay of 28 days. The Ld. AR to fortify his claim had taken us through the affidavit, dated 14/03/2026 filed by the assessee before us. Also, the Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the notice, dated 19/11/2025 that was Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO received by the assessee from the AO referring to the outstanding demand raised in his case. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal had crept in for no fault on the part of the assessee, therefore, the same may be condoned.

12. Per contra, Dr. Sachin Kumar, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) did not seriously object to the seeking of condonation of the delay involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant.

13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the explanation of the assessee regarding the delay in filing the present appeal. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee had in his Form- 35 provided the email address for receiving notices/communication from the CIT(A) office, i.e., padi.kumar@gmail.com. However, we find that the assessee had deposed in his affidavit, dated 14/03/2026 that the notice intimating the hearing of the appeal was not forwarded to the email account, i.e., padi.kumar@gmail.com, but as per his verification had been dropped in different email Ids., viz., armurthyco@yahoo.co.in and kambalavst@gmail.com, i.e., other than the email Id that was provided by him in Form-35. In our view, the failure on the part of the CIT(A) office to forward the appellate order in the email Id provided by the assessee in Form-35, i.e., padi.kumar@gmail.com clearly supports his claim that the impugned delay in filing of the present appeal is not attributable to any Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO fault on his part. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations condone the impugned delay of 28 days involved in filing of the present appeal.

14. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that it is the Ld. AR’s claim that as the assessee was not validly put to notice about the fixation of the hearing of the appeal for the reason that the notice intimating the fixation of the appeal was not forwarded/dropped in the email Id provided by him in “Form-35” i.e., padi.kumar@gmail.com, but had been forwarded in certain other email accounts, therefore, he had remained divested of an opportunity to prosecute the appeal and put forth his case before the CIT(A). Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that if the assessee would have been validly put to notice about the hearing of the appeal, then he would have substantiated before the CIT(A) that the assessment order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/12/2024 was actually served upon him only on 29/04/2025.

15. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties. In our view, as the CIT(A) office had failed to carry out a valid service of notice intimating the fixation of the appeal by not forwarding/dropping the same in the email account provided by the assessee in Form-35 ie., padi.kumar@gmail.com, therefore, he had remained precluded from putting forth his case before the First Appellate Authority. We find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that in the totality of the facts Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO involved in the present case the matter in all fairness and in interest of justice requires to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) who is directed to readjudicate the same after validly putting the assessee to notice.

16. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to readjudicate the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the CIT(A) shall in the course of the set aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

17. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. AY: 2020-21

18. We shall now take up the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A), dated 30/09/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under section 270A of the Act, dated 05/06/2025.

19. As we have set aside the quantum assessment, i.e., the order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 17/12/2024 to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, the present appeal is also set aside to the file of the CIT(A) who is directed to dispose of the same after disposing of the quantum appeal of the assessee. Prajyoth Kumar Adi vs. ITO 20. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.