GULNAZ BEGUM MOHAMMED,MADANAPALLI V. ITO., WARD-1, MADANAPALLE

MA 92/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Gulnaz Begum Mohammed, the appellant, against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Madanapalli, the respondent. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking recall of a previously dismissed appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The original appeal was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel, who was unwell but did not provide evidence of illness at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal, upon receiving an affidavit from the counsel explaining the reason for non-appearance, decided to recall the earlier order and restore the appeal for a decision on its merits, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831560 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P. MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

" MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A. No.92/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.425/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Madanapalli PAN:ASBPG7313B Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Madanapalli (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/01/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) has been filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) seeking recall of the order passed by this Tribunal for Assessment Year 2016–17 dated 09.07.2025 in ITA No.425/Hyd/2025. 2. The brief facts in this case are that on the date of hearing, an adjournment petition was filed by C.A. M. V. Joshi on behalf of the assessee stating that the arguing counsel, Shri P. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 2 of 8 Murali Mohan Rao was not well. However, since no supporting evidence regarding the illness of Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao was filed along with the adjournment petition, the Tribunal did not accept the request and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under : Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 3 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 4 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 5 of 8 3. At the outset it is observed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by this Tribunal due to non-prosecution on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (“the Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 6 of 8 Ld. AR”) made a request to treat the present M.A. as an application under Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ( “ the ITAT Rules”). As there was no objection on behalf of the Revenue, this M.A. of the assessee is treated as an application under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules and taken for adjudication accordingly. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-appearance on the date of hearing was due to a bona fide and reasonable cause. The Ld. AR further submitted that he was genuinely unwell on the date of hearing and, therefore, could not appear before the Bench. It was also submitted that he has now filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-appearance in terms of Rule 10 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the impugned order of the Tribunal be recalled and the appeal be restored for adjudication on merits. The affidavit filed by the Ld. AR is reproduced as under : Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 7 of 8 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection if the appeal is recalled and restored for hearing on merits. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record, including the affidavit filed by the assessee. We find that the non-appearance of the Ld. AR on the date of hearing was supported by a reasonable cause and that the assessee should not be denied an opportunity of hearing on merits on account of such circumstances. It is a settled principle that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than on technical grounds. 7. In view of the above facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we recall the order of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2025 passed in ITA No.425/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2016–17 and restore the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing in due course and issue notice of hearing to both the parties accordingly. 8. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st January 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21st January 2026 Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com MA No 92 of 2025 Gulnaz Begum Mohammed Page 8 of 8 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Ms. Gulnaz Begum Mohammed, C/0 P Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 2 ITO, Ward -1, Madanapalli 3 Pr.CIT, Tirupati 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "