SALAHUDDIN MOHAMMED,SECUNDERABAD V. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1047/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had dismissed his earlier appeal as time-barred without considering the merits. The dismissal was based on a delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the appellant's health issues and unfamiliarity with electronic procedures, as he is a 74-year-old senior citizen. The Tribunal considered the medical evidence and the appellant's age, deciding to condone the delay and restore the case for a decision on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780044 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMALATHA K
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ 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.1047/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Salahuddin Mohd. Secunderabad PAN: ADGPM5833N Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: CA Hemalatha K राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Salahuddin Mohammed, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld.CIT(A)”) dated 10.08.2024 for the A.Y 2013-14. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 231 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad Page 2 of 6 explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 10.08.2024, and therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 31.10.2024. However, the assessee had undergone heart surgery and had been under continuous medical treatment for discomfort in cardiac functioning since September 2024. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is 74 years of age, and considering his advanced age and fragile health condition, the delay was purely unintentional and caused by unavoidable circumstances. It was further submitted that the medical reports evidencing such treatment were filed along with the condonation petition. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, objected to the condonation of delay, contending that the reason furnished by the assessee does not constitute a reasonable cause. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the condonation petition and the supporting medical documents filed by the assessee. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee had indeed undergone major cardiac surgery and was under continuous medical supervision during the relevant period. The assessee, being a senior citizen aged 74 years, was reasonably incapacitated from attending to regular matters owing to his medical condition. In our view, the said circumstances constitute Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad Page 3 of 6 a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025, has held that a justice- oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Applying the above ratio, we are satisfied that the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal was due to genuine medical reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Considering also the assessee’s advanced age, we hold that the explanation offered is reasonable and supported by evidence. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the Facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent which is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) should have provided an opportunity of bearing heard by issuing a hearing notice before issuing the order under section 250 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have accepted the condonation of delay in filing the appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal merely due to a delay in filing the appeal without even considering the facts and merits of the case. 4 The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Ld. A.O has erred in concluding INR 1,08,97,655 /- as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and adding the same under the head ‘Income from other Sources’. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad Page 4 of 6 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, interest levied under section 234A of the Act by Ld. AO was consequential in nature subject to the relief of other grounds of appeal. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, to delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.” 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.04.2023. There was, however, a delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Without condoning the said delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had duly explained the reasons for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), stating that he was completely unfamiliar with the assessment proceedings conducted electronically, and being unaware of the online compliance system, could not take steps in time. It was further explained that when the assessee later approached a Chartered Accountant for assistance, he was advised to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, by that time, the limitation period had expired. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen of 74 years, suffering from old-age ailments and not well acquainted with online procedures, and hence, the delay was purely on account of ignorance and old age. It was therefore pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad Page 5 of 6 the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the matter be restored for decision on merits. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the plea, contending that the reasons given for the delay were not sufficient cause within the meaning of law and that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly declined to condone the delay. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) had explained the reasons for the delay, which were neither deliberate nor with any mala fide intention. The assessee, being a senior citizen aged 74 years, was admittedly not conversant with the online mode of proceedings and had to depend on professional advice. Such ignorance, when coupled with old-age infirmities, constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO (supra) has held that the authorities should adopt a liberal and judicial approach while deciding matters of condonation of delay so that substantial justice is advanced. 10. In view of the above, we hold that the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open for adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1047 of 2025 Salahuddin Mohammed Secunderabad Page 6 of 6 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th October, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Salahuddin Mohd. 8-7-145/1 Old Bowenpally, Ghouri Nagar, Secunderabad 500011 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1) Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "