KAMISETTY ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1607/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Kamisetty Ashok Kumar (HUF), who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, upon discovering that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs.1,73,00,000 and had received rental income of Rs.6,31,395. The AO completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 due to non-compliance by the assessee, taxing the entire sale consideration as short-term capital gain and assessing the rental income under 'Income from Business'. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 294-day delay, which the Tribunal later condoned, finding no malafide intention or deliberate negligence on the part of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791942 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N MURALI KRISHNA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1607 of 2025 Kamisetty Ashok Kumar HUF Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ 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 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1607/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Kamisetty Ashok Kumar ( HUF ) Hyderabad PAN:AADHK7634R Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 15 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri N Murali Krishna, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Waseem UR Rahman, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Kamisetty Ashok Kumar (HUF) (“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 15.07.2025 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1607 of 2025 Kamisetty Ashok Kumar HUF Page 2 of 6 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and did not file any return of income for Assessment Year 2015–16. On the basis of information available on record, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) noticed that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1607 of 2025 Kamisetty Ashok Kumar HUF Page 3 of 6 consideration of Rs.1,73,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. The Ld. AO, due to non-compliance by the assessee, brought to tax the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,73,00,000/- as short-term capital gain. The Ld. AO also noticed that the assessee had received rental income of Rs.6,31,395/- during the relevant previous year and accordingly assessed the same under the head “Income from Business.” Finally, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 11.03.2024 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,79,31,395/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, there was a delay of 294 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. During the appellate proceedings, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was submitted that the Karta of the assessee-HUF is settled in the United States of America. He resides outside India and has been regularly filing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1607 of 2025 Kamisetty Ashok Kumar HUF Page 4 of 6 his individual returns in the USA. The Ld. AR submitted that the Karta was under a bona fide belief that the tax consultant who facilitated the creation of the HUF was also taking care of filing the returns of the HUF in India. The Ld. AR submitted that in the year 2024, when the Karta visited India, he came to know that the earlier consultant had not filed the return of income for the HUF. Realising this lapse, the Karta immediately engaged a new tax consultant, and the new consultant filed the return of the assessee for Assessment Year 2023–24. During the course of monitoring income tax refunds for Assessment Year 2023–24, the new consultant came across an outstanding demand of Rs.1,82,20,502/- for Assessment Year 2015–16. Only at this stage did the assessee come to know that an assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act had been passed for Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. AR submitted that immediately thereafter the assessee took steps to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal occurred only because the assessee became aware of the assessment order belatedly. It was therefore pleaded that there was no malafide intention or deliberate negligence on the part of the assessee. The Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned, and the matter may be remanded either to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) or the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that he has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, considering that the original assessment was completed ex parte and the assessee could not respond to any notices. The Ld. DR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1607 of 2025 Kamisetty Ashok Kumar HUF Page 5 of 6 relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but fairly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted an opportunity to present its case on merits. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and examined the material available on record. It is evident that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) occurred due to the assessee coming to know of the assessment order only at a later stage. In our considered view, the reasons explained by the assessee constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee should not suffer for the lapses of the earlier consultant, particularly when the Karta resides outside India and there is no indication of deliberate inaction or malafide intention. We therefore condone the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, since the assessment was completed ex parte under section 144 of the Act, without any participation by the assessee, and the Ld. CIT(A) has not examined the matter on merits, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, we remand the issue to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction that the Ld. AO shall provide due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all evidences and submissions in support of its claims. The assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments during the proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1607 of 2025 Kamisetty Ashok Kumar HUF Page 6 of 6 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th December 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th December 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Kamisetty Ashok Kumar (HUF) Flat 212, Yamuna Block, Ganesh Nagar Ravanthpur, Amberpet, S.O Hyderabad 500013 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1) IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad 500004 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "