RAVI KUMAR KANDALA,HYDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-12(6), HYDERABAD

MA 82/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by Ravi Kumar Kandala, seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed his appeal due to an inordinate delay of 2,913 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the non-receipt of the order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which he claimed was not received, thus preventing him from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appeal, noting the absence of evidence to support the non-receipt claim. In the MA, the assessee argued that the burden of proof for proper service of the order lies with the Revenue, not the assessee. The Departmental Representative countered that the Tribunal had already considered and rejected the reasons for the delay in its earlier decision. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and the relevant legal precedents, concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record that could justify rectification under section 254(2) of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792656 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Chetan Gupta, ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: YADAGIRI BHOOPATHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Onus to prove; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

" MA No 82 of 2025 Ravi Kumar Kandala Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A. No. 82/Hyd/2025 (आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.333/Hyd/2025) (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ravi Kumar Kandala Hyderabad PAN:AJPPK3365G Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12 (6) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri Yadagiri Bhoopathi CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 28/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (“MA”) is filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.333/Hyd/2025 dated 10.06.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The assessee has contended that there is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 82 of 2025 Ravi Kumar Kandala Page 2 of 6 2. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2,913 days, for which an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay was also filed. It was submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay. Inviting our attention to para no. 2 of the affidavit filed by the assessee, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had clearly stated that the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) was never received by the assessee and, therefore, the assessee was unaware of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and could not file the appeal within the limitation period. It was further submitted that the Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, observed that the assessee had not furnished any evidence regarding non-receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR also submitted that the burden of proving proper service of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) lies on the Revenue and not on the assessee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Chetan Gupta (ITA No.72/2014, dated 15.09.2015) wherein it was held that the onus is on the Revenue to establish proper service of notice or order. The Ld. AR further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of “error apparent on the face of record” and submitted that a patent and self-evident error can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. He therefore submitted Printed from counselvise.com MA No 82 of 2025 Ravi Kumar Kandala Page 3 of 6 that there is a mistake in the order of this Tribunal requiring rectification and that the order may be recalled. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. v. CIT 440 ITR 01 and submitted that the Tribunal has already considered the issue in para no. 5 of its order and has recorded a finding regarding the reasons for not condoning the delay. It was submitted that what the assessee is seeking through this MA is nothing but a review of the order of the Tribunal, which is impermissible in law while exercising jurisdiction under section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the material available on record including the case law relied on. The primary contention of the assessee in this MA is that the Tribunal, in its order, stated that the assessee had not furnished any evidence regarding non-receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), whereas, according to the assessee, the burden to prove service lies upon the Revenue. In this context, we have carefully gone through para no. 5 of the Tribunal’s original order, which is to the following effect: “5. We have carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee and the submissions advanced by both parties. On a holistic reading of the affidavit and accompanying materials, we are unable to accept that the assessee acted with reasonable diligence. The plea that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received for more than seven years appears improbable, especially in the absence of any evidence showing steps taken during this time to follow up the appeal status or seek a copy of the order. The explanation that the Printed from counselvise.com MA No 82 of 2025 Ravi Kumar Kandala Page 4 of 6 assessee was misled by his tax consultant also does not absolve him from the responsibility of monitoring the proceedings related to his own income tax matters. We further find that the assessee has not placed any material to demonstrate that he made efforts to ascertain the status of the appeal during the intervening period. The circumstances cited regarding the demise of his father and variation in documentation, though unfortunate, do not justify such an extraordinary lapse of time. In the totality of the circumstances, we find no justifiable cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as time barred.” 5. On perusal of the above, we find that the Tribunal has categorically held that the plea that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received by the assessee for more than seven years is improbable, specifically in the absence of any evidence showing steps taken by the assessee during this long period to follow up the status of the appeal or obtain a copy of the order. Therefore, the Tribunal did not reject the plea of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to produce evidence of non-receipt of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order; rather the Tribunal’s finding was that the assessee failed to place on record any material to show that the assessee made any effort or took any step during the extraordinary delay of 2,913 days to ascertain the status of the appeal or obtain a copy of the appellate order. Thus, the allegation that the Tribunal proceeded on an incorrect premise is factually incorrect. The Tribunal’s finding is on the absence of evidence of “steps taken by the assessee” during the delay period, not on the absence of evidence of non-receipt of the CIT(A) order. The contention raised in this MA, therefore, seeks to re-argue and re- appreciate the very reasoning which the Tribunal had already Printed from counselvise.com MA No 82 of 2025 Ravi Kumar Kandala Page 5 of 6 considered and dealt with in the original order. What the assessee is seeking through this MA is nothing but a review of the earlier order of the Tribunal. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (Supra) that the power under section 254(2) of the Act is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record and does not extend to reviewing or re- writing the order. Further, the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chetan Gupta (Supra) does not assist the assessee because the facts before the Hon’ble High Court was not regarding the question of apparent mistake in the order of Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the facts of that case are wholly distinguishable. Similarly, reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd in support of the contention that a mistake which is self-evident, patent and manifest from the record is liable to be rectified, is also misplaced, as in the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal has consciously recorded its reasoning based on the facts and the conduct of the assessee during the prolonged delay period. The assessee is essentially seeking a review of the findings of the Tribunal, which is outside the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we hold that no mistake apparent from the record has been pointed out by the assessee which could warrant rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 82 of 2025 Ravi Kumar Kandala Page 6 of 6 6. In the result, the M.A filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 5th December 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 5th December 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Ravi Kumar Kandala, Flat No.801, Pridhvi Block, My Home Nawadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad 500081 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 12 (6) Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT -Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "