ATHIPALLI SAI SRAVAN,NELLORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

ITA 644/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Athipalli Sai Sravan against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee's previous counsel failed to communicate or act upon the notices, leading to a delay in the assessee's awareness of the dismissal. The Tribunal found that the delay was not deliberate and was due to the negligence of the previous counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707054 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKATA SUSEELA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न् याययक सदस् य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस् य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Athipalli Sai Sravan, Nellore. PAN:BBUPA4499P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Ms. Venkata Suseela, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 08/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Athipalli Sai Sravan (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In support of the condonation of delay, the assessee has filed a petition along with relevant facts explaining the cause of delay. 3.1 The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the e-mail ID of the then counsel was mentioned in the appeal memo. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the said counsel failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), and did not communicate the progress or status of the proceedings to the assessee. The assessee ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 3 became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only after nearly 80 days from the date of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a new counsel and took necessary steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. This sequence of events led to a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR pleaded before the Bench that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to the bona fide lapse on the part of the earlier counsel. He prayed that the delay may be condoned by taking a justice-oriented and liberal approach, so that the assessee is not denied the opportunity of being heard on merits due to the fault of his previous representative. 3.2 Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that sufficient opportunity had been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), and hence the assessee ought to have been vigilant in prosecuting its appeal. 3.3 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the petition for condonation of delay along with the ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 4 explanation offered by the assessee. It is evident that the delay occurred primarily due to the negligence of the earlier counsel who failed to communicate or act upon the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee, being unaware of the development, came to know of the dismissal only after significant time had lapsed. Upon becoming aware, the assessee acted promptly and filed the appeal without further delay. In our considered view, the cause shown constitutes a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that technicalities should not override substantive justice and that courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach, particularly when the delay is explained to be due to factors beyond the control of the litigant. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and equity, we condone the delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 19.04.2021. As ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 5 explained in the condonation petition and in the course of hearing, while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the e-mail ID of the assessee’s then authorised counsel was provided in the appeal memo. However, during the appellate proceedings, the said counsel failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and did not inform the assessee regarding the progress of the appeal. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, dismissing the appeal without adjudicating it on merits. 5. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee was not at fault and that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) remained unattended solely due to the inaction of the earlier authorised counsel. The assessee became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only much later and thereafter promptly took steps to approach new counsel and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that due to the fault of the earlier representative, the assessee could not prosecute its appeal on merits and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted in the interest of justice. He therefore requested that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving an adequate ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 6 opportunity of hearing to the assessee and permitting the assessee to file all necessary evidences and supporting documents. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the plea for remand and submitted that sufficient opportunity was already given by the Ld. CIT(A), but the assessee failed to avail the same. The Ld. DR submitted that remanding the matter would result in unnecessary prolongation of proceedings, especially when the assessee was at fault for not ensuring proper compliance before the appellate authority. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and examined the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance of notices. The explanation offered by the assessee that the earlier counsel failed to inform or update the assessee appears to be bona fide, and there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had acted with malafide intent or indifference. In such circumstances, and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 7 assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. Dismissing the appeal for technical reasons, without adjudicating the grounds, would not be in the interest of substantive justice. Accordingly, we set aside the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and granting liberty to file necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and ensure timely compliance as per the directions of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 10.07.2025. * Reddy gp ITA No.644/Hyd/2025 8 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Athipalli Sai Sravan, D.No.24-2-148-25, Crescent Manor Apartments, Dargamitta, Nellore-524 003 2. ITO, Ward - 1, Nellore. 3. Pr.CIT, Tirupathi. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, "