KAIGALA SURYACHANDRA RAO,TALLAPUDI vs. IINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal found no reason to suspect the assessee's statement that he attempted to verify the Income Tax portal for the assessment order as a precautionary measure after receiving it. The Tribunal acknowledged that the order was not found on the portal at that time, leading to a delay. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee stood to gain nothing by filing the appeal with a delay and no mala fides could be inferred. Condoning the delay would allow the cause to be decided on merits, determining the correct tax liability in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before itself and also the delay before the CIT(A), restoring the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Kaigala Suryachandra Rao, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment year 2022-23, with a delay of 20 days. The appeal was against the order dated 06/08/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The assessee's delay was attributed to suffering from Polyarthralgia, preventing him from attending to work. He also stated that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed on 20/3/2024, was not found on the Income Tax portal, causing a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) refused to condone this delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's plea of the assessment order not being available on the Income Tax portal, despite receiving it. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that although the assessment order was served, it was not found on the Income Tax portal. This discrepancy caused a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee claimed the delay was due to justifiable circumstances and not for any gain, and that he would prosecute the proceedings diligently if given an opportunity. The assessee also stated a personal ailment (Polyarthralgia) contributed to the overall delay in filing the ITAT appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the impugned order, arguing that once the assessee received the assessment order, there was no valid reason to verify the Income Tax portal or to plead its non-availability as a cause for the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S.
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 04/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 06/08/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Kaigala Surya Chandra Rao (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2022-23, assessee preferred this appeal with a delay of 20 days.
At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee was suffering with the Polyarthralgia and was not in a position to attend any work and it caused the delay in filing of this appeal. He further submitted that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was passed on 20/3/2024 and the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was to be filed on or before 20/4/2024, but since the assessment order was not found in the Income Tax portal, though the order was served on him, the appeal could not be filed within time causing delay of only 10 days, but the learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before him stating that according to the assessee himself he received the impugned order on 20/3/2024 itself. Learned AR submitted that though the order was received by the assessee, for cross verification when the assessee verified the Income Tax portal he could not find the assessment order and in that process it took time for the assessee to file the appeal. He submitted that assessee does not stand to gain by filing the appeals with the delay and it is only due to the justifiable circumstances the delay occurred and given an opportunity the assessee would prosecute the proceedings diligently.
Learned DR placed reliance on the impugned order to state that when once the assessee received the assessment order, there was no reason for him to verify the Income Tax portal or to plead the nonavailability of the assessment order in the Income Tax portal as a reason for the delay.
4 . We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. In form 35 itself the assessee mentioned the date of service of the assessment order as 20/3/2024 but as a reason for the delay assessee pleaded that the assessment order was not available in the Income Tax portal and that is the reason why the appeal could not be filed within time. There is nothing to suspect the statement of the assessee that on receipt of the assessment order, as a matter of precaution the assessee tried to verify the Income Tax portal but since he could not find the assessment order in the Income Tax portal at the time he waited for some time and then filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A).
Assessee does not stand to gain by filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) with any delay nor can be infer any mala fides on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with a delay of 10 days. The highest that would happen by condoning the delay of 10 days is that a cause could be decided on merits and the correct tax liability of the assessee could be determined in the interest of justice. We therefore find it to be a fit case to condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal before us and also the learned CIT(A), and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits.
With this view of the matter, we condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ground are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of March, 2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026