S A PROJECTS, HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 1398/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves SA Projects, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT (A) which dismissed their appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee argued that the assessment order was served late, on 16/02/2021, and they filed the appeal on 02/03/2021, which should be considered within the permissible time frame. The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal without adequate consideration of the assessee's explanation for the delay, leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural inadequacies in how the CIT (A) handled the case, particularly the lack of a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case regarding the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47163 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1398 of 2024 SA Projects Page 1 of 5 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1398/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 SA Projects Hyderabad PAN: ACYFS7618E Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11 (3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No 1398 of 2024 SA Projects Page 2 of 5 3. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine being barred by limitation while passing the impugned order. He has pointed out that the assessee has explained the reason for the delay as the service of the assessment order was only on 16/02/2021 and thereafter, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT (A) on 2/3/2021. The learned CIT (A) without giving any appropriate opportunity to the assessee has dismissed the appeal by treating the same as invalid being barred by limitation. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh consideration. ITA No 1398 of 2024 SA Projects Page 3 of 5 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has issued notice to the assessee, but there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued by the learned CIT (A) and therefore, the learned CIT (A) was having no option but to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Since the appeal of the assessee was barred by limitation as filed after more than one year, therefore, the same was dismissed being barred by limitation in the absence of any sufficient reason to explain the delay. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A). 5. We have considered the rival submission as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee in Form-35 has stated that the assessment order was served on the assessee only on 16/02/2021 and thereafter, the appeal before the learned CIT (A) was filed on 2/3/2021. This fact is recorded in paras 3 & 4 of the impugned order as under: ITA No 1398 of 2024 SA Projects Page 4 of 5 6. The learned CIT (A) did not accept this explanation and reasons for filing the appeal belatedly and finally dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation in paras 6.18 and 7 as under: 7. It is pertinent to note that once the assessee has stated in Form-35 that the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act was served on 16/02/2021, then before rejecting the said explanation of the assessee, the assessee ought to have been given an appropriate opportunity to substantiate and file the better particulars on this issue. The learned CIT (A) appears to have issued only one notice just before passing the impugned order and therefore, in our considered opinion, an appropriate opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee before passing the impugned order and dismissing the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication including the condonation of delay. The assessee is ITA No 1398 of 2024 SA Projects Page 5 of 5 also directed to produce relevant record including the application/ affidavit to explain the cause of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 9th April, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 SA Projects C/o Katrapati & Associates, 1-1-298/2/B/3 Sowbhagya Avenue Apartments, 1st Floor, Ashoknagar, Street No.1 Secunderabad 500020 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 11(3) Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "