MALEPATI SIVASHANKARREDDY,KURNOOL V. ITO., WARD-1, NANDYAL

ITA 47/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Malepati Sivashankar Reddy, an agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the non-receipt of notices and the assessment order by the assessee, which were crucial for responding to the assessments made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the failure of the Assessing Officer to send notices to his registered email ID. The CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the condonation of delay petition and affidavit provided by the assessee, which led to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473235 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SM-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.47/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Malepati Sivashankar Reddy, KURNOOL PAN:DXTPS2891J Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 1 Nandyal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 14/11/2014 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 2 of 8 3. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and residing in a rural area. The assessee did not receive notices issued by the Assessing Officer, as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as none of the notices were sent to the email ID registered with the Department. He has referred to the profile of the assessee as available with the Department and ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 3 of 8 submitted that the assessee has given an email ID to the Department, however, the Assessing Officer has not sent any of the notices, as well as the as order to the email ID of the assessee. Therefore, there was a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) without considering the petition for condonation of delay. as well as the affidavit filed by the assessee, has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. The learned AR has further pointed out that even the learned CIT (A) has taken incorrect fact while considering the condonation of delay in Para No.5 of the impugned order. The learned CIT (A) has mentioned the delay of 80 days whereas the actual delay in filing the appeal was only 55 days which shows that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without application of mind. He has referred to the reply filed by the assessee dated 30/05/2022 whereby the assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay with an affidavit explaining the cause of delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. Further, in response to the notice dated 7/10/2024, the assessee again filed a reply dated, 30/10/2024 along with supporting documents but the same was also not considered by the learned CIT (A) while passing the impugned order. Hence the learned AR has submitted that the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) may be condoned and since the assessment order was also passed ex- parte and the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit, the matter may be remanded to the record of ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 4 of 8 the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that, the assessee is required to explain the delay of each and every day in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit are very vague and therefore, do not constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT (A) while declining to condone the delay in filing of the appeal has recorded the relevant facts in para 5.0 as under: ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 5 of 8 6. Thus, it is clear that the learned CIT (A) has considered only Form 35 filed by the assessee and not considered the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit dated, 13/05/2022 filed by the assessee vide reply dated 30/05/2022. The assessee has filed the acknowledgement of filing of the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit placed at Page No.7 of the synopsis. Thus, it is manifest from the record that the assessee has duly filed petition for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit explaining the cause of delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the actual delay in filing the appeal at the most is 55 days and not 80 days which is considered by the learned CIT (A) as per para 5 of the impugned order reproduced above. Therefore, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned CIT (A) has not considered the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the cause of delay while declining the condonation of delay which manifest that the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT (A) in a casual manner without considering the relevant facts of the actual period of delay as well as the petition for condonation of delay and affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit filed before the learned CIT (A) as ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 6 of 8 under: ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 7 of 8 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee is an agriculturist and the assessment order was passed ex-parte, due to the reason that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer which we find from the record that the same were not sent to the email ID of the assessee registered with the Department. Therefore, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) as well as section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not sent to the email ID of the assessee but were only uploaded to the ITBA Portal of the Department. The assessee has filed relevant record downloaded from the ITBA Portal of the Department exhibiting this fact that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not sent to the email ID but only uploaded to the ITBA. Therefore, the delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is hereby condoned. Since the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the learned CIT (A) has also not decided the appeal on merits, therefore, there was no occasion either for the assessee to produce the relevant record nor for the authorities below to examine the same. Hence the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No 47 of 2025 Malepati Sivashankarreddy Page 8 of 8 Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 19th February, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Malepati Sivashankar Reddy, c/o Katrapati & Associates, 1-1-298/B/3 Sowbhatya Avenue Apartments, 1st Flooor, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad 500020 2 Income Tax Officer Ward -1 25/183, Sanjeesva Nagar, Nandyal 3 Pr. CIT - 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "