PRAMEELA PORIKA,SURYAPET V. ACIT., CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 593/HYD/2025

AI Insights

Smt. Prameela Porika filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed her earlier appeal ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal found that the notices were not effectively communicated to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee, upon receiving a penalty notice, became aware of the earlier proceedings and, after recovery from illness, filed the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the absence of mala fide intention in the delay and allowed the appeal to be heard on merits, restoring the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784693 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SANDHYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 1 of 7 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.593/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Prameela Porika SURYAPET PAN:ALMPP8561C Vs. ACIT Circle 7(1) SURYAPET (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Sandhya राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Smt. Prameela Porika (“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 27.10.2023 for the A.Y 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 2 of 7 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reason for delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the email ID mentioned in Form No.35 belonged to an article assistant of the counsel. All notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), including the notice of hearing and the appellate order, were sent on the said email ID. The said article assistant did not inform the assessee about the issuance of notices as well as the passing of the appellate order. Therefore, the assessee could not come to know about the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that under the personal information section of Form No.35, the assessee had opted ‘No’ for communication of notices by e-mail. However, no physical notice or copy of order was ever sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, which is in contravention of principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee first time came to know about the Ld. CIT(A)’s order only when a penalty notice under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 03.03.2025 was sent by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) to a different email ID, which belongs to the assessee. After receiving the penalty notice, the assessee immediately verified and came to know that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was already disposed of ex parte. During that period, the assessee was suffering from medical illness. The assessee has placed on record medical Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 3 of 7 prescriptions and medical certificates evidencing the said illness. After recovery from the illness, the assessee arranged to file the appeal before this Tribunal and accordingly filed the appeal on 03.04.2025. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intention to delay the proceedings and that there is sufficient cause behind the delay. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“ Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the reasons explained by the assessee are not adequate or reasonable. It was submitted that the assessee was also non- compliant during the assessment as well as penalty proceeding, which reflects a casual approach towards the appellate process. Therefore, the delay should not be condoned and the appeal should be dismissed as barred by limitation. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is evident that although the assessee had specifically opted ‘No’ for e-mail communication in Form No.35, the entire appellate process before the Ld. CIT(A) was conducted only through email, and no physical notice was ever issued. This is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the assessee came to know about the appellate order only upon receipt of the penalty notice under section 270A of the Act, and the medical evidence placed on record shows that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 4 of 7 assessee was under medical treatment around the relevant period. The sequence of events explained by the assessee is consistent, reasonable, and supported by documents. We find no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has established sufficient cause for the delay. Considering the settled position that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, we find it appropriate to condone the delay, subject to imposition of reasonable cost. Accordingly, the delay of 449 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands only) to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within one month from the date of receipt of this order and filing proof of the same before the Registry. Subject to such compliance, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not providing proper opportunity to the appellant. 3) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,68,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T Act. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the amount of Rs. 1,15,865/- representing unsecured loan as the income of the appellant. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 4 lakhs as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T Act; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 5 of 7 6) The learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the entire agricultural income of Rs. 12,32,580/- as income taxable u/s 115BBE of the I.T Act 7) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A & 23B of the I.T Act 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;” 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Ld. AO passed under section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 dated 23.12.2019. However, during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not comply with the notices issued. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte and upheld the assessment order. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, as explained in the condonation petition, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never effectively communicated to the assessee and therefore the assessee could not appear or furnish submissions during the appellate proceedings. It was further submitted that even during the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO, the assessee could not properly prosecute the case and therefore substantive submissions and supporting documents could not be filed. The assessee has now filed a petition for admission of additional evidence, containing all relevant documents necessary to establish the claims made in the return of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 6 of 7 income. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that, in the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present the case on merits. It was requested that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. AO, so that the assessee can furnish necessary evidence and explanations. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the remand and submitted that both the lower authorities had already provided sufficient opportunities during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings, which the assessee failed to utilize. Therefore, no further opportunity is warranted. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that as explained in the condonation petition, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never effectively communicated to the assessee and therefore the assessee could not appear or furnish submissions during the appellate proceedings. Further, it is also evident that the assessee could not properly represent its case before the Ld. AO as well. The assessee has now come forward with supporting documents and evidence which go to the root of the determination of taxable income. The principle of natural justice requires that legitimate claims should not be rejected solely on account of technical or procedural lapse when relevant evidence is now available and is being tendered for examination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO, to examine the additional evidence and to re-decide Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 593 of 2025 Prameela Porika Page 7 of 7 the issue afresh. Accordingly, the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, examine all documents and evidence that the assessee intends to file in support of its claims and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate in the proceedings before the Ld. AO and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 11th November, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Smt. Prameela Porika, 1-4-250 MG Road, Suryapet 508213 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Suryapet, Telangana 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "