Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, faced a delay of 451 days in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee's wife suffered a knee surgery and later a cancer diagnosis, requiring the assessee's full attention. The assessee came to know about the assessment order only when his bank account was attached.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 451 days in filing the appeal before it, considering the medical emergencies faced by the assessee's wife and the assessee's lack of experience in tax matters. The learned CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine due to a delay of 146 days was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and before the CIT(A) is justifiable due to medical emergencies and lack of experience, and if so, whether the appeals should be admitted for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 281(1)(b), 271F, 226(3), 133(6), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 25.10.2023 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016.
2 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and not a regular taxpayer. The Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of the transactions in the bank account comprising of sweep transactions. The assessee was not having income assessable to tax being an agriculturist, therefore, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings u/sec.147/148 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 and passed ex-parte Order u/sec.144 of the Act on 30.03.2023. Only when the assessee received the notice u/sec.281(1)(b) and 271F of the Act dated 17.08.2023 and 05.09.2023 respectively, the assessee came to know about the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The assessee consulted the local Tax Practitioner who verified from the Income Tax Portal and found that the assessment order dated 30.03.2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer and additions were made in respect of the transactions in the 3 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 bank account. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) which was belated by 146 days. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine and not decided the same on merits. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that even the Order of the learned CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee. Thereafter, the wife of the assessee had undergone a surgery for right knee and the assessee was to attend her wife in her disposed conditions due to the knee surgery. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that since the assessee was busy in attending the wife and getting her treatment, he could not pay attention to the tax matters and therefore, steps are not taken by the assessee to file the appeal in time. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further submitted that the agony of the assessee did not rest there as thereafter, the wife of the assessee was also diagnosed with cancer and has undergone the treatment by chemotherapy for a long period and thus, 4 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 the assessee totally concentrated on the treatment of the wife. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has thus submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. She has referred to the medical report of the wife.
The learned DR on the other hand has submitted that this is an inordinate delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The medical record shows that the assessee has shown ignorance and negligence to file the appeal before the Tribunal as well as before the learned CIT(A). Despite the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 146 days, the assessee again did not take due diligent for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the learned DR has opposed to the condonation of delay.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit. The relevant contents of the affidavit of the assessee are reproduced as under:
5 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 “During the month of November, 2023 on 30.11.2023 my wife Smt. Banreddy Prameela had undergone surgery to the Right knee at Jyothi Hospital, Pulivendula, Kadapa district and the appellant had to attend on her for all her physical requirements as there is no physical assistance or any elderly person at home. Copy of the medical certificate issued by the said Hospital is placed at page No. of the annexures. The other medical reports are not readily traceable as most of the old articles were discarded while shifting our residence. She was advised bed rest for six months. Even after the said period normalcy was not restored in the health condition of my wife. She was finding changes in the chest region and also developed back pain continuously. As the pain was acute during February, 2025 after consulting physicians locally, I had to take my wife to Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore. After number of investigations including pet scan it was diagnosed that she was suffering from Malignant Breast Disease Ductal Carcinoma. Documents FHD to 18 showing the investigations are annexed to this affidavit. The Hospital started 1 medical treatment by chemotherapy periodically and till date the course is not completed. I was totally concentrating on the medical treatment of my wife.
The appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) came to my knowledge when department issued a notice u/s 226(3) dated 11.2.2025 to the bank, attaching my bank account. A copy of the said notice is annexed at pages No.20 to 22 of the annexures.
I was contemplating to entrust the further proceedings in the matter to a senior tax Advocate at Hyderabad as the local tax consultant through whom the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) was filed, has not dealt the matter properly and the the assessment made by the Assessing Officer is high pitched. I was not in a position to take 6 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 decision to select the appropriate tax expert immediately after I came to know that my bank account was placed under attachment. After a number of enquiries, I could choose one Tax Advocate at Hyderabad on 24.3.2026 and got the appeal filed on 26.3.2026. Reckoning the date of the order of CIT (Appeals), there is days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. I humbly submit that the delay is on account of lack of knowledge of Income-tax proceedings on my part coupled with inexperienced local tax consultants and the medical problems of my wife.
I humbly submit that considering my income level and sufferings of my wife from the dreadful disease of Breast cancer I would suffer grave and irreparable injustice if the delay is not condoned by the Hon'ble ITAT and no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned.”
There is no dispute that after the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) on 25.10.2023, there was a medical emergency of the wife of the assessee who undergone the knee surgery on 30.10.2023 and further she was also diagnosed with cancer and undergone the treatment of chemotherapy. Having considered the agriculture and rural background of the assessee and the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit as well as the petition for condonation of delay, we take a lenient view to condone the delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal subject to 7 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 payment of cost of Rs.2000/- [Rs. Two Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of the Order.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. “The order of Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on the facts & circumstances of the case.
The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have considered the reasons mentioned, unawareness of Income Tax Laws & inability expressed in the delay condonation petition in right perspective and condoned the delay; provided proper opportunity of hearing in the interest of justice.
The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have considered the plea of the assessee that none of the notices and orders issued/passed including the impugned assessment order u/s 147 was served on him as they were all issued on wrong address and there was a reasonable cause for the delay. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have verified the said fact by comparing the PAN data from ITBA website and the impugned assessment order before rejecting the condonation petition.
The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed of the same on merits since the entire assessment proceedings were bad and not sustainable in law as the statutory notice u/s 148 was time barred and issued by incorrect authority.
8 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 5. The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and disposed of the same on merits since there was total non- application of mind on the party of the Assessing Officer right from initiation of assessment proceedings viz., 148A proceedings and the assessment proceedings in as much as the alleged high value transactions of Rs.1,30,19,000/- appearing in the bank statement were nothing but repetitive transactions of same term deposits as the said bank account is of the nature "Auto Sweep". The Assessing Officer ought to have properly verified and analyzed the bank statement obtained u/s 133(6) from the Bank before completing the assessment and treating the said repetitive transactions of Rs.1,30,19,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 in the hands of the assessec.
Any other ground(s) at the time of hearing with the leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal.”
We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as learned DR and carefully perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee has explained the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) in the affidavit as under:
9 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 AFFIDAVIT 1. Bandreddy Bandia Reddy, son of Sri Erikal Reddy aged about 59 years, resident of H.No.139, Street No.313, Ambakapalli Road, near APGB Bank & RTC Bus Stand, Pulivendula, Kadapa District do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under. I am the appellant herein and as such I know the facts of the case. I hail from agricultural family. My ancestors are all chosen the agriculture as our family profession. Since I am involved in the agricultural activity since early stages of my life, I have minimum educational background. I own Acr 4.83 cents of agricultural land. Besides carrying on the agricultural activity, I used to work as a agricultural labourer during the relevant period to improve my earnings. As the income derived by me from agricultural activity is exempt from tax and as the other earnings on account of wages are far below the year till date. Based on the financial status of the family, the Rice Card for supply of subsidised rice for the family. A copy of the Ration Card Issued by the Food & Civil Supplies Department of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh is annexed P.No.1.
It is only during the year 2023 when the Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings in my case for the assessment year 2015-16, I am required to take the help of others in getting the matters sorted out. The assessment year 2015-16 is the only year for conducting the income-tax proceedings in my case. The assessment was completed ex parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the 1.T. Act vide order dated 30.3.2023 as the notices stated to have been issued by the AO were returned unserved.
It was only when the order of assessment has come to my knowledge in the month of August/September, 2023 when two notices u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F were issued by the department on 17.8.2023 and 5.9.2023 respectively. 1 consulted the local tax 10 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 practitioner and he verified from the Income-tax portal and down loaded the order of assessment dated 30.3.2023. He also got the appeal filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals), NFAC through another local tax consultant on 22.9.2023. Reckoning the date of the order of assessment 1.e.30.3.23, there was a delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (Appeals).
I humbly submit that I have no experience of any Income-tax proceedings as there was no occasion for me to file any return of income due to the income levels. I submitted above, I have no educational background nor circle of friends/relatives who are income-tax assessees. On seeing the Order of assessment it was revealed that there was repetitive transactions in my bank statement to the nature bank account i.e E-ab with flexi savings deposit account. A copy of the letter dated 15.11.2023 issued by Union Bank of India explaining the nature of the bank account is annexed P.No.425. The Assessing Officer aggregated all the repetitive transactions and made a high-pitched assessment determining the total income at Rs.1,30,24,988/-.
I humbly submit that considering my income level and the dreadful disease of cancer being suffered by my wife, I would suffer grave and irreparable injustice if the delay is not condoned by the Hon'ble ITAT and no prejudice will be cause to the Revenue if the delay is condoned.
I earnestly request the Hon'ble ITAT to kindly consider my above submissions.
What is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sd/-Bandreddy Bandla Reddy DEPONENT”
11 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 8. We have considered the reasons explained by the assessee as well as the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee was not decided on merits by the learned CIT(A) but was dismissed in limine due to delay of 146 days in filing the appeal. Further, the assessment order was also passed ex-parte. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed while condoning the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, since the appeal of the assessee was not decided by the learned CIT(A) on merits, therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set-aside and matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
12 ITA.No.506/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.02.2026.