BADAR FATIMA,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1394/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Badar Fatima, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, which had dismissed her earlier appeal due to a 78-day delay in filing. This delay was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The original penalty under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was levied on 31/12/2021, and the appeal was filed on 19/04/2022. The appellant's representative argued that the delay should be excused based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods during the pandemic. The Tribunal agreed with this perspective, noting that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and restored the matter for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469622 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SM-B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRIKANTH REDDY Y
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC-B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1394/Hyd/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Badar Fatima, Hyderabad. [PAN : AAZPF1800A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. अपीलाथȸ / Appellant Ĥ× यथȸ / Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by: Shri A V Raghuram, AR राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y, Sr. AR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of hearing: 23/01/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Pronouncement on: 23/01/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 07/11/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Badar FaƟma (“the assessee”), assessee preferred this appeal for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, Learned AR submiƩed that learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by declining to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, but as a maƩer of fact the penalty U/s. 271AAC(1) of the Income ITA No. 1394/Hyd/2024 Badar FaƟma, Hyderabad Page 2 of 4 Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was levied by order dated 31/12/2021 and the appeal was filed on 19/4/2022, the period covered by the COVID Pandemic. He referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending the periods of limitaƟon and submiƩed that in the light of such orders there is no delay at all. Apart from this, he further submiƩed that the quantum appeal in ITA No. 1015/Hyd/2024 was remanded to the file of the learned CIT(A) by order dated 4/11/2024. 3. Learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the AuthoriƟes below. 4. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the record that there was a delay of 78 days in preferring appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the reason for the delay in filing the appeal was aƩributed to the pandemic. As a maƩer of fact, though the learned DR does not concede to condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitaƟon would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitaƟon remaining, all persons shall have a limitaƟon period of 90 days from 01/03/2022, and in the event of actual balance period of limitaƟon remaining with effect from 01/03/2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The limitaƟon period applicable to the appeal before the learned CIT(A), in fact, was covered by the above decision and, therefore, learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Further, as could be seen from the order dated 4/11/2024 in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee, the quantum addiƟon order was set-aside aŌer condoning the delay and the issue was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for disposal on merits. ITA No. 1394/Hyd/2024 Badar FaƟma, Hyderabad Page 3 of 4 In these circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to dispose it of along with the quantum appeal. Grounds are answered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for staƟsƟcal purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA. G) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 23/01/2025 OKK/sps ITA No. 1394/Hyd/2024 Badar FaƟma, Hyderabad Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Badar FaƟma, 12-2-158/B, Murad Nagar, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500028. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD "