SREERAMULU PENTAKOTA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), VISAKHAPATNAM

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2019-20, declaring an income of Rs. 7,01,180/-, after claiming set-off of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 2,37,03,359/- against Long Term Capital Gains (for short “LTCG”) of Rs. 2,37,03,359/- derived from the year under consideration. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, wherein his total income was determined at Rs. 2,43,33,430/- after allowing set-off of only an amount of Rs. 71,109/- [as against Rs. 2,37,03,359/- claimed by the assessee]. Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for set-off of carry forward loss was disallowed to the extent of

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Ostensibly, as the assessee, despite having been offered seven opportunities, had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter held a conviction that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and thus, upheld the view taken by the A.O/CPC, Bangalore.

The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the mater in appeal before us.

Per contra, Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) objected to the seeking of condonation of the delay involved in filing of the present appeal.

We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record regarding the issue of delay involved in filing the present appeal before us.

Admittedly, it is a matter of fact discernible from the record that the assessee, despite having been afforded seven opportunities to participate in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A), had failed to put up an appearance on either of the said occasions i.e., on 04.08.2023, 06.09.2023, 29.03.2024, 02.06.2024, 06.08.2024, 17.09.2024 and 18.10.2024. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in the backdrop of the aforesaid failure of the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings had dismissed his appeal in limine and approved the additions/disallowance made by the A.O/CPC, Bangalore vide his intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee in the backdrop of the material available on record. In our view, there is substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as the assessee during the relevant period was suffering from certain medical ailments and was advised rest, therefore he could not follow up his income tax proceedings before the authorities below, which thus, had both resulted to the said proceedings going unattended as well as delay in the filing the present appeal before us. We say so, for the reason that the aforesaid claim of the assessee about his ill-health is supported by the deposition made by him in his “affidavit” dated 20.09.20245, which is further supported by medical certificates. Apart from that, we also find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that as his accountant, who was looking after his income-tax matters, had on his own provided his email account, viz. “balagayerukunaidu@gmail.com” in the memorandum of appeal filed before CIT(A), i.e, “Form-35”, therefore for the said reason also the assessee had remained unaware of the ongoing appellate proceedings and the dismissal of his appeal by the first appellate authority vide an exparte order. We say so, for the reason that the aforesaid claim of the assessee is supported by an “affidavit” dated 22.09.2025. In our view, as the delay in filing of the present appeal before us had crept in for the aforesaid two-fold reasons viz., (i) ill-health of the assessee during the relevant period; and (ii) failure of the accountant who was looking after the income tax proceedings of the assessee to properly follow up the ongoing appellate proceedings, therefore, the same in all fairness and in the interest of justice merits condonation. Our aforesaid view that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering an application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the same is supported by

We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberation are of the view that as there were justifiable reasons due to which the assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), set-aside the matter to his file with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh after adjudicating all the specific grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before him. Needless to say, the CIT(A) in the course of the set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Before parting, we may herein observe that though we have condoned the delay involved in filing of the present appeal, but at the same time cannot remain oblivion of the fact that the said delay, to some extent, had crept in because of the assessee not remaining vigilant regarding his ongoing proceedings before the CIT(A). We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, though have condoned the delay in filing of the present appeal, but the same is subjected to imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- on the

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations.

रधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer Ward – 3(3) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam - 530016 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकरअपीलीयअनर्करण, नवशधखधपटणम /DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER