Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 10-month delay in filing. The assessee attributed the delay to ill health caused by COVID-19.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's reasons for the delay and disposed of the appeals on merits. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons provided by the assessee, which were attributed to COVID-19 pandemic related illness.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 142(1), 69, 115BBE, 249
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
आदेश /O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18. Since, all these appeals pertaining to one assessee and the core issue involved in these appeals is identical, all the appeals are clubbed, heard
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Firstly, we shall take up AY 2013-14 as a lead appeal.
ITA No. 17/Viz/2025 (AY 2013-14)
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the 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, dated 13/11/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2013-14.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 admitting a total income of Rs. 6,09,797/-. During the AY under consideration, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee had made transactions with respect to immovable property aggregating to Rs. 85,09,300/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO by observing that the assessee has no source of income to make to such huge investment in immovable property and therefore, believing that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, a notice U/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 31/03/2021 with the prior approval of the competent Authority and the same was duly served on the assessee. In compliance, the assessee did not file any return of income. Therefore, notice U/s. Page No. 2
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/08/2021 and served on the assessee on the same day by email. Later on, the case was transferred to NaFAC, who observed that since the assessee fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued U/s. 142(1) of the Act, completed the assessment to the best of his judgment based on the material available before him as per the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act. While making the assessment, the Ld. AO observed that even though the assessee was asked to explain the nature and the source of the investments made in the immovable property, the assessee failed to offer any explanation to substantiate the investment during the year under consideration. Therefore, the Ld. AO concluded that that the amount of investment made in the immovable property represented from undisclosed sources. Thus, the Ld.AO treated the investment made in the immovable property amounting to Rs. 85,09,300/- as unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act while taxing the same. Thus, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 91,19,097/- against the returned income of Rs. 6,09,797/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 07/03/2022. Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 10 months.
On appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), with respect to the belated filing of the appeal, it was the submission of the assessee that he was affected
Page No. 3
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT by COVID Pandemic during the relevant period of time and therefore, it took time to consult the Counsel and submit the relevant documents as required by the Counsel for filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submissions of the assessee and held that there is no sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from presenting the appeal within the 30 days stipulated U/s. 249 of the Act. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [AR] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation of the assessee with respect to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC as the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause ie., ill health of the assessee on account of COVID Pandemic. The Ld. AR further drawn our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee, dated 24/04/2025 wherein the assessee explained the reasons for belated filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not on account of negligence or any deliberate act of the assessee. Ld. AR also submitted that without considering the explanation and the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)-
Page No. 4
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT NAFC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by denying the condonation petition filed before him. The Ld. AR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC are not applicable to the case of the assessee as the assessee is not negligent / deliberate but prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause while filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO to decide the appeal de novo on merits.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The Ld. DR further submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC even though there is a delay, the onus is on the assessee to explain each day’s delay with proper evidence. The Ld. DR also submitted that since the assessee has not discharged his onus, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In toto, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and pleaded to uphold the decision of the Ld. AO.
7. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is a fact that on being aggrieved by the addition
Page No. 5
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT made by the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 10 months. It is also a fact that with respect to the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee has explained his reasons by stating that due to ill health, on account of COVID Pandemic, suffered by the assessee the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. Further, before us the assessee has also produced an affidavit explaining the reasons that prevented the assessee in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit. The relevant paras from the affidavit are culled out herein below:
Page No. 6
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have considered the explanation given by the assessee for belated filing of the appeal and ought to have disposed of the appeal on merits. Instead, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal in- limine. The Ld. AO has also passed the order to the best of his judgment by invoking the provisions of section 144(1) of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons advanced by the Ld. AR as to why the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and to set-aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and thereby remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to decide the case de novo on merits. Further, we also hereby caution the assessee to cooperate before the Ld. AO in their proceedings, otherwise Ld. Revenue Authorities are at liberty to pass orders in accordance with law based on the material available on record. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Page No. 7
ITA 17 to 21/Viz/2025 Suryadevara Chalamaiah vs. JCIT 19, 20 & 21/Viz/2025 (AYs: 2014-15 to 2017-18)
The core issue involved in these appeals relates to whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in dismissing the assessee’s appeals without considering the reasons advanced by the assessee for filing the appeals beyond the prescribed time limited. This issue is identical to that of the issue adjudicated by us in the above paragraphs of this order while dealing with the assessee’s appeal in AY 2013- 14. Therefore, our decision given therein (in applies mutatis mutandis to the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 18 to 21/Viz/2025, AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 also. Accordingly, the four appeals filed by the assessee (ITA Nos. 18 to 21/Viz/2025) are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the AY 2014-15 to 2017- 18 are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Ex-consequenti, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09th June, 2025.