QADEER AHMED MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 768/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, finding no sufficient cause and relying on a High Court decision. However, the Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for delay to be a 'sufficient cause' and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return for AY 2020-21 declaring nil income, but showed agricultural income of Rs. 78,65,000/- and a business loss. The AO estimated agricultural income at 60% and treated the balance as income from other sources, making additions under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) after a delay of 97 days, citing illness and family issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficient to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on merits, and if the reasons provided by the assessee constitute a "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)(a),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “SMC” Bench, Hyderabad

For Appellant: Ms. P. Sumitha, Sr. A.R

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Qadeer Ahmed Mohammed, H.No.11-6-380/12, Nampally, Hyderabad – 500001. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →