MUKUNDLAL BAHETI,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 244/HYD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Mukundlal Baheti against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The appeal was significantly delayed, filed 751 days after the original order. The assessee attributed the delay to severe medical issues, including acute low back pain, which he claimed prevented him from accessing the necessary information to file the appeal on time. The Tribunal, however, found the explanation for the delay inadequate, noting the absence of continuous incapacity or bedridden condition throughout the delay period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315861 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad शशशश शशशश शशश, शशशशशशश शशशशश शशश शशशश शशशशशशश शशशशशशश, शशशश शशशशश शश शशशशश श BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.244/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-17) Shri Mukundlal Baheti, Hyderabad. PAN:ABHPB6449A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Abhinav Pitta, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Mukundlal Baheti (“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 29.11.2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 751 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 01.04.2025, explaining ITA No.244/Hyd/2025 2 the reasons for such delay. The reasons given by the assessee as per the affidavit is to the following effect : ITA No.244/Hyd/2025 3 3. As per the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he was under prolonged medical treatment for acute low back pain from January 2023 onwards, and remained under the supervision of multiple doctors including those from Walk-in Clinics, Centre for Orthopaedics & Trauma, ITA No.244/Hyd/2025 4 and Apollo Hospitals. The assessee claimed to be under complete bed rest and incapable of accessing the Income-tax portal to verify the status of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed only after he was made aware of the appellate order in February 2025. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) argued that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, specifically his medical condition, and prayed for condonation of the delay in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly objected to the condonation petition and submitted that the delay of 751 days is inordinate and unexplained. It was pointed out that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was made available on the Income Tax portal and there was no valid reason for the assessee or his representative not to have kept track of the proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee was non-compliant even before the Ld. CIT(A) and the medical reasons now advanced do not establish a continuous incapacity throughout the entire delay period. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit and medical records furnished by the assessee. It is noted that while the assessee has placed on record prescriptions and MRI reports pertaining to ITA No.244/Hyd/2025 5 his back pain in 2023, he has not been able to substantiate continuous incapacity or bedridden condition covering the entire delay period 751 days. Although the assessee contends that he was under severe medical distress, the Ld. AR has failed to demonstrate that the assessee was bedridden and incapable of initiating legal proceedings during the full period of 751 days, so as to prevent the filing of the appeal. 7. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons cited by the assessee are not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay, and do not inspire confidence that the assessee was diligently pursuing the matter. The delay is excessive and unexplained for substantial periods. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 14.05.2025. * Reddy gp ITA No.244/Hyd/2025 6 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Mukundlall Baheti, 15-9-59, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad-500 012 2. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, "