SRI MAHESH GURRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST - TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 20 OF 2024 Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the appeal by duly setting aside the Order dated 22-03-2024 passed in I.T.A No.40A/iz/2022 (Assessment year 2011-2012) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, filed challenging the Order dated 11-08-2020 passed in DIS & Order No.lTBA/APL/S/250/2020-21/ 1027691960(1), by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-9, which filed against the Order dated 21-03-2014 passed U/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Assessment year 2011-2012) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Visakhapatnam. Between: Sri Mahesh Gurram, R/o.39-33-100/2, Plot No.401, Opp.East Park, Visakhapatnam. ...APPELLANT AND Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs.1,11,69,494/- and raising demand of tax payable at Rs.44,71,940/-, pending disposal of the appeal. :SRI MUDUNURU YESHWANTH VARMA Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : SRI VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA (STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT) The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL N0:20/2024 JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava) The appeal filed under Section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the following substantial questions of law: A. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred in not foliowing and considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suo-Moto Cognizance for extension of limitation reported in 441 iTR 122, and holding that the Appeal filed by the Appellant was with a delay despite being within limitation? B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by disallowing the appeal filed by the Appellant on grounds of delay despite there being sufficient cause for delay in instituting the appeal? C. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT erred by not holding that procedural laws are handmaiden of justice and that the CIT(A) and Hon’ble ITAT should not have taken a hyper-technical approach while condoning the delay? Brief facts of the case are: 2. The assessee filed return of income admitting total taxable income at Rs.2,80,551/-, The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed and the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2014, assessing the total income of the at Rs.1,11,69,494/- and raised demand of tax payable at Rs.44,71,940/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee assessee

2 preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A), dismissed appeal as barred by limitation. the 3. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and further there preferring the appeal before the Tribunal. an inordinate delay of517 days in was 4. Heard Mudunuru Yeshwanth Varma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijay Kumar Punna, learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo MotuWrlt Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, In Re; Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, has observed that: ‘III) In cases where the limitation would expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV) It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings’’.

F > 3 In the present case, the appeal was preferred on 28.02.2022, before the Tribunal. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, cannot said to be a belated one and in view of the decision of the Hon’bleApex Court, the learned Appellate Tribunal should have taken up the matter and disposed of the same on its own merits, rather dismissing it on account of limitation. We therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal, dated 22.03.2024, and remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties. 6. In terms of the above, the Income Tax Tribunal Appeal is 8. disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-9. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Visakhapatnam. 4. One CC to Sri Mudunuru Yeshwanth Varma Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Punna (Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies BSV TAC

HIGH COURT PATED:23/08/2024 > ♦ JUDGMENT ITTA.No.20 of 2024 itta by remitting the •'MATTER WITHOUT COSTS