MOHD NOORUL HUDA,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 842/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mohd. Noorul Huda against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary contention was the validity of notices issued under sections 148A and 148, which were subsequently quashed by the Telangana High Court. The Tribunal considered the High Court's decision and the ongoing SLP by the Revenue in the Supreme Court, leading to the decision to quash the assessment orders and allow the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786104 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), CIT Vs. V.N. Bhattacharya [1977] 180 ITR 406 (SC), Kanakala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (2023) 156 Taxman.com 178 (TS)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2016-17 and 2017-18) Mohd. Noorul HUDA, R/o. Hyderabad. PAN : BFRPK2189D Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -9(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.A.R. सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The captioned appeals are filed by a single assessee viz., ‘Mohd. Noorul Huda’ against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 28.11.2014, relating to the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, respectively. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 105 days in filing the captioned appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in both the appeals that, against the order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 dated 17.03.2022, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 10.10.2023. In Form No.35, the assessee had provided the email ID [e-mail] and opted not to receive communication by email. However, the CIT(A) sent the notices and the order under Section 250 to the old email ID [e-mail], to which the assessee had no access as it had long been inactive and the password forgotten. The order thus went unnoticed, and only during a routine check by the Accountant’s office, it was found that, the order under Section 250 was passed on 28.11.2024. Consequently, the appeals were filed before this Hon’ble Tribunal on 16.05.2025. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda assessee further submitted that, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court, in W.P. No. 28918/2024 dated 21.11.2024, had held the notice issued under Section 148 to be invalid. He also submitted that, the delay in filing the appeals was only due to circumstances beyond his control and, therefore, prayed that the delay of 105 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal be condoned in the interest of justice and that the issue be decided on merits. 3. Shri Gurpreet Singh, learned Senior A.R., for the Revenue, on the other hand, did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay, in view of the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bonafide and come under reasonable cause. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and directed that a lenient approach should be followed to avoid dismissal of Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda meritorious cases on technical grounds. Going by the principles laid down in MST Katiji (supra), and also considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay of 105 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 05-08-2017, declaring total income of Rs.3,02,550/-. The case has been subsequently reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded, as per which income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31-03-2021 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee neither furnished the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act nor sought adjournment. Therefore, the A.O. issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, dated 15-11-2021, 27-12-2021, and 10-01-2022 and called upon the assessee to file relevant evidences in support of cash deposits made into his bank account. Since the assessee neither furnished any return of income nor explained the source of cash deposited into his bank account, the A.O. passed order u/s 147 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 17-03-2022 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,55,40,580/- by making addition of Rs. 3,52,01,026/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards cash deposited into his bank account. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details even though, the appeal was listed for hearing on many occasions. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee ex parte for non-prosecution by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.N. Bhattacharya [1977] 180 ITR 406 (SC) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Mohd Afzal, Advocate, referring to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. No. 28918 of 2024, submitted that, the Hon’ble High Court quashed notice issued u/s 148A and 148 and consequential orders, if any, with a liberty to the either of the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda parties, if they so want to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of the W.P. in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue filed by the Revenue. Since the notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Act has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court, further proceedings, including consequent assessment proceedings, cannot survive. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the A.O. and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be quashed. 9. The learned senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri Gurpreet Singh, on the other hand, submitted that, this issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by the Revenue against the orders of various High Courts, and therefore, the matter may be either kept in abeyance till disposal of the SLP filed by the Revenue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or may be decided on merits. He further submitted that, now, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana has quashed notice u/s 148A and 148 of the Act, and consequent proceedings, but fact remains that, the said order has been challenged by the Revenue in the series of SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the matter has not Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda reached finality, the issue may be kept open to be decided at an appropriate level, and the matter may be decided on merits. 10. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record, and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, the assessee has challenged notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequent assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 by filing Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. No. 28918 of 2024, order dated 01-05-2025, by considering relevant notices issued u/s 148A and 148 and provisions of Sections 151A and 144B of the Act and also by following various judicial precedents, including the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (2023) 156 Taxman.com 178 (TS), quashed notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential orders, if any, passed by the A.O., with a liberty to either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this W.P. appeal in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue. The Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana are as under. “18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs.” Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.” 11. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana has quashed the notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Act and consequential orders, if any, passed by the A.O., in our considered view, the order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, cannot survive. Thus, we quash the assessment order passed by the A.O. with a liberty to Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this appeal in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue. We ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove. ITA No.843/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 13. The facts and issues involved are identical to the facts and issues which we have considered in ITA No. 842/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. We find that, under identical set of facts in W.P. No. 28896 of 2024, dated 01-05-2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana quashed notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, and consequential orders, if any, passed by the A.O. on identical reasoning with a liberty to either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of the W.P. in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP on the very same issue. Since the notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Act and consequential assessment order passed by the A.O. are quashed, the present order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s 144 Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda of the Act, cannot survive under the law. Thus, we quash the order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act with a liberty to either of the parties, if they want, to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this appeal in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue. We ordered accordingly. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.843/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17 is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove. 15. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st October, 2025. Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूिधथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 31.10.2025. TYNM/sps Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA Nos.842 and 843/Hyd/2025 Mohd Noorul Huda आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Mohd. Noorul Huda, R/o.18-7-198/A/1214/A, Murad Mahal, Talab Katta, Hyderabad - 500053 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 9(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "