AKHILA DEVI JAVVADI,HYDERABAD. V. ITO., WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM

ITA 204/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Akhila Devi Javvadi, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, included an addition of Rs. 52,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 74-day delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to work pressure and lack of awareness about the assessment. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and a Supreme Court precedent, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314304 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Akhila Devi Javvadi, R/o.Hyderabad. PAN : ATNPJ5458R. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Kothagudem. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri K.A Sai Prasad, C.A. राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Ms. Reema Yadav. Sr.D.R सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 01.05.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 O R D E R प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 17.12.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the 2 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 17.01.2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not appreciating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and hence the order of First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal not condoning delay is not proper and correct. 2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not adjudicating the issues on merits. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in not discussing the grounds raised in appeal questioning the addition of Rs.52,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on information that though the assessee during the subject year was in receipt of income, viz. (i) salary of Rs.6,97,626/-; (ii). interest income of Rs.2,47,433/-; and (iii) had made time deposits of Rs.52,00,000/-, but had not filed her return of income, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. 3. As the assessee despite sufficient opportunity, neither filed her return of income u/s 148 of the Act nor complied with the notices which thereafter were issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, therefore, 3 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 the A.O. was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s 141 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 17.01.2024 after making additions on the aforesaid issues u/s 69 of the Act, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.61,45,059/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A). As the assessee had delayed the filing of the appeal by 74 days; therefore, she had filed an application seeking condonation of the same. Ostensibly, the assessee had come forth with three-fold reasons explaining the delay involved in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) viz., (i). that as she during the subject year was employed as a manager with HSBC Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., therefore, due to work pressure, she had both failed to respond to the notices that were issued in the course of the assessment proceedings and also failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time; (ii). that substantial time was involved in engaging a counsel for filing the appeal; and (ii). that she had gathered about the framing of the assessment in her case for the subject year only when her consultant on checking her income tax e-filing account 4 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 had learnt about the same and brought it to her notice. As is discernible from the record, the assessee to fortify the aforesaid factual position i.e. reasons leading to the delay involved in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) had filed before him an application seeking condonation of the same along with a supporting “Affidavit”. 5. On perusal of the record, we find that CIT(A) did not find favor with the explanation of the assessee regarding the delay that was involved in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) after drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements, held a firm conviction that as the assessee had failed to come forth with any sufficient cause explaining the delay involved in filing the appeal, therefore, the same was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on the said count itself. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 7. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 8. Shri K. Sai Prasad, C.A. the learned Authorized Representative (for short the “ld.AR”) for the assessee company, at the threshold of the hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(A) without appreciating the facts that had resulted to the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before him had dismissed the same without giving any cogent reason. Elaborating on his contention, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee had failed to prefer the appeal before the CIT(A) for three-fold reasons viz., (i). that as she during the subject year was employed as a manager with HSBC Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., therefore, due to work pressure, she had both failed to respond to the notices that were issued in the course of the assessment proceedings and also failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time; (ii). that substantial time was involved in engaging a counsel for filing the appeal; and (ii). that she had gathered about the framing of the assessment in her case for the subject year only when her 6 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 consultant on checking her income tax e-filing account had learnt about the same and brought it to her notice. Carrying his contention further, the ld.AR submitted that as the delay involved in filing the present appeal had crept in not on account of any malafide conduct or lackadaisical approach on the part of the assessee but for bonafide reasons, therefore, the same in all fairness, be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits. 9. Per contra, Ms. Reema Yadav, learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”), submitted that as the assessee had failed to come forth with an explanation regarding the delay involved in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), therefore, the same had rightly been dismissed by him. 10. We have thoughtfully considered the learned Authorized Representatives for both parties on the reasons leading to the delay in filing of present appeal before the CIT(A). Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) involved a delay of 74 days. On a perusal of the reasons given by the assessee regarding the delay 7 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 involved in filing the appeal, it transpires that she had attributed the same primarily to the reason that she being a salaried employee due to work pressure could not file the same within the prescribed time period. Apart from that, it is stated by her that she had learnt about the framing of the assessment in her case only when her tax-consultant on checking her income-tax e-filing account had brought the same to her notice. The assessee had further stated that certain time was also consumed in engaging a counsel for preferring the appeal. 11. Although, we are of the firm conviction that the assessee ought to have remained vigilant and filed the appeal before the CIT(A) within the prescribed time period, but at the same time cannot remain oblivion of the reasons given by her which had resulted to the delay in filing of the said appeal. We are of the view that as there were bonafide reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal, therefore, the the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a justice oriented and a liberal approach and condoned the same instead of dismissing the same at the threshold on the ground of limitation. Our aforesaid view is supported by the recent decision 8 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Specia Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025. The Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had approved the declining of the condonation of delay of 166 days by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, had observed, that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay involved in filing the appeal. 12. Be that as it may, we are of the firm conviction that in the backdrop of the peculiar facts involved in the present case, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay involved in the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay involved in filing of the appeal before him and dispose of the same on merits. 13. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 9 ITA No.204/Hyd/2025 Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2025. Sd/- SdSd/-- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/-Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 07.05.2025. *#TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Akhila Devi Javvadi, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, 1- 1-298/2/B3, Sowbhagya Avenue Apartments, 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1, Hyderabad – 500020. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Kothagudem. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad "