BURADA RAMA MOHANA RAO,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 128/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"]. Therefore, assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. section 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and there is a delay of 119 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the delay is due to beyond the circumstances of his control and requested that delay may be condoned and order may be passed on merits. However, the 4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reason for rejecting the delay condonation was incorrect. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the 119-day delay and decide the appeal on merits, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to cooperate promptly with revenue authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the liquor business, faced an ex-parte assessment order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B due to non-appearance before the AO. An appeal was filed with the CIT(A) with a delay of 119 days. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, citing the assessee's non-appearance before the AO as a reason for not showing sufficient cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone a 119-day delay in filing an appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance before the Assessing Officer, and if the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Pronounced: 12.06.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JM:

1.

The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071166186(1) dated 12.12.2024 for the A.Y.2016-17 arising out of order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 29.01.2024.

Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual carrying on the business 2. of “Liquor Business”. During the assessment proceedings, sssessee could not appear before the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"]. Therefore, assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and there is a delay of 119 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the delay is due to beyond the circumstances of his control and requested that delay may be condoned and order may be passed on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) not condoned the delay on the ground that assessee has not appeared before the Ld. Ld. AO, therefore, it is not a fit case to condone delay and observed that no sufficient cause also shown by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following 3. grounds: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay of 119 days in filing the appeal.

Page No. 2

3.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for the delay.

4.

Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

4. At the outset, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee (in short “Ld.AR”) submitted that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate his case and prayed that the delay before Ld. CIT(A) may be condoned.

5.

On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] supported the orders passed by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have heard both the sides and perused the record and gone into the orders of the Revenue Authorities. We find that Ld. CIT(A) not condoned delay of 119 days only on the ground that assessee has not appeared before Ld. AO. We find that is not a correct reason to reject the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee. Therefore, considering the prayer and the submissions of the Ld.AR and the issues involved in the appeal, in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and pass the order on merits, thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings failing which the Ld. Revenue

Page No. 3 Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →