Majeti Madhavi V. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

ITTA/331/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Majeti Madhavi, the appellant, who contested the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, regarding her tax assessments for the year 2008-09. The Tribunal had rejected her appeal due to a delay of 1,140 days in filing, which it found unjustified. The appellant argued that her lack of legal knowledge and awareness of the procedural requirements contributed to the delay. However, the Tribunal and the High Court noted that the appellant was represented by competent legal counsel and was herself a qualified doctor, implying a reasonable level of awareness and capability to manage her tax affairs timely.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808425 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATA CHOUDARY
• Assessee Lawyers: DUNDU
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Condonation of delay; Income Tax; Limitation
• Section: 151 CPC; 260-A

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 331 of 2022 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A', Hyderabad, in ITA No.1490lHydl2018, for assessment Year 2008-09 dated 28-06- 2O22 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-1 '1, Hyderabad, ITA No.0148 to 01SO/DCIT CC 1(3), Hyd/ClT(A)-1 1113-14 dated:10-08- 2016, prefened against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle-6, Hyderabad, PAN/G I R No.ACEPM0659D, dated 27 -O3-2O1 3. Between: Majeti Madhavi, H. No.1'1-25-15, K.T. Road, Kothapet, Vijayawada-S2OOO1. ...APPELLANT AND The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax(Central), Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. ...RESPONOENT lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section ',l51 CPC r/w Section 260A(2)(a) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of days 42 in filing the above appeal, as otherwise the Petitioner/Appellant will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI DUNDU SASHANK, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, Learned Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.33L ot 2022 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si ,lusttce P,SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Dundu Sashank, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Dundu Manmohart, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.K. Mamata Choudary, iearned Standing CounseI for the Income Tax Dcpartment, for the respondent. 2. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, Bench-A, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A.No.l49OlHydl 20 IB, dated 28.06.2022. 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the salrle was barred by limitation with a delay of (1,140) days. !: {.r 2 4. I)erusal ol the pleadings r,,,ould reveal that appellant had filed different appeals before the learned Tribunal for different Assessment Years 5. in the instant case, it u,as for the year 2008-09. For the year 2OO9-2O 10, it was I.T,A.No.675 lHyd/2017, and for the year 2Oll-12, it was I.T.A.No.898lHydl20 17. The said appeals were taken up together by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal reachcd to the conclusion that since the appellants thcrein have failed to shorv sulficient and plausible explanation for the delay or.r their part in filing the said appeals before the learned Tribunal, the appeals were rejected by the learned Tribunal 6. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the date of events that transpired and also tried to impress upon the fact that the appellant (a qualilied Doctor) was not too aware of the legal ir-rtricacies involved in the judicial proceedings and was also not arvare of the recourse to be availed of, that too within a stipulated period of time. The said contentions on behalf of the appellant does not find too much of force, more particularly, for the reasons that have been considered by the Tribunal itself 3 while considering the case of the appellant on the application for condonation of de1ay. Moreover, what is also reflected was that the appellant was a1l along represented by a competent 1ega1 expert and also an expert in tax matter. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that appellant herself is a qualified medical practitioner and, as such, she must have definitely been well aware of the requirement of payment of tax and also the consequence of the failure of payment of the tax timely. The appellant cannot be equated or considered in parity with a layman or a rustic villager so as to be given any sympathetic consideration 7. In the instant case, the delay of period in filing the present appeal is more than three (03) years. Given the factual matrix of the case and also taking note of the entire contents of the impugned order which also deals with the appeals filed by the appellant in respect of Assessment Years for the subsequent period, we are not impressed upon by the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant calling for interference with the impugned order. I n I 4 B. The appeal thus lails and is accordingly dismissed. No CoStS. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOTTT.REGtSTRAR qrj SECT|ON OFFICER To, kam 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A ', Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-1 1, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle-6, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT loPUCl 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT PSK,J & LNA,J DATED:21 10812023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.331 of 2022 THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED gTATli 6.; ) i ,'a l-, tD. '.'' . ,.,. , cFt ls .. ..' ./ 22 1 lP2) i I I i I I I i i i I i I "