KORRIPALLY SATHYANARAYANA,TIRUMALGIRI, HYDERABAD. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2(1), AJMER., AJMER, RAJASTHAN.

ITA 64/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Korripally Sathyanarayana, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, which had dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay in filing. The original assessment for the Assessment Year 2021-22 included an addition of Rs. 49,00,000 to the assessee's income, which was contested. The Tribunal noted the absence of objection from the Departmental Representative regarding the remission of the case to the CIT(A) and decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the need for justice and a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705637 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHANK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh euh\"k cksjkM] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 64/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 Korripally Sathyanarayana EME Records Lal Bazar, Trimulgherry H. O, Tirumalagirl cuke Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BCSPS1700E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sushank, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/06/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement :02/07/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 31.07.2024 arising out of the order for A.Y 2021-22 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2022 framed by assessment unit, Income Tax Department. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the sole ground of appeal submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ITA No. 64/JPR/2025 Korripally Sathyanarayana vs. ITO 2 appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal. Prayer made for restoring the issues on merits to the file of ld. CIT(A). 3. Ld. DR raised no objection if the issues are remitted to ld. CIT(A). 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The assessee is an individual and for A.Y 2021- 22 income tax return e-filed on 25.06.2021 declaring income of Rs. 4,88,990/-. Subsequently, case selected for the sale deed complete scrutiny and in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act additions of Rs. 49,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) but there was a delay of 68 days in filing appeal. In form 35, the assessee has submitted that he is working as Grade-IV employee in Indian Army and did not engage any Chartered Accountant for filing return but subsequent to the additions made by ld. AO it tooks sometime in filing the appeal. 5. Considering the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the larger interest of justice and placing reliance on the judgment ITA No. 64/JPR/2025 Korripally Sathyanarayana vs. ITO 3 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382 and for sub-serving the cause of justice, I deem it appropriate to condonation the delay in filing of appeal before ld. CIT(A). Further, since ld. CIT(A) has not dealt on merits of the assessee. I remit back all the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(AO) for necessary adjudication and to past a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard should be granted to the assessee. The assessee should also refer from seeking unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/07/2025. Sd/- ¼ euh\"k cksjkM ½ (Manish Borad) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member ITA No. 64/JPR/2025 Korripally Sathyanarayana vs. ITO 4 Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 02/07/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Korripally Sathyanarayana, Telangana 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 64/JPR/2025} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "