SANJEEVA REDDY SIRIGIRI,NALGONDA V. ITO., WARD-1, NALGONDA

ITA 855/HYD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves Shri Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Centre, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal as not maintainable due to a delay of 433 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's residence outside India during the relevant period and his unawareness of the assessment proceedings until informed by his wife, post her return to India during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and supporting documentary evidence, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781383 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2025
• 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: MOHD. AFZAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No 855 of 2025 Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri 1 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ 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 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.855/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri, Nalgonda PAN:BDCPS6307Q Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 1 Nalgonda (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Smt.V. Koteshwaramma, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 18.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2017- 18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 855 of 2025 Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income for the assessment year 2017–18. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.17,25,929/- in his bank accounts during the period of demonetization of specified bank notes between 08.11.2016 and 30.12.2016. Accordingly, a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was issued on 01.02.2018, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 855 of 2025 Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri 3 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. However, the assessee did not comply with the notice and also failed to respond to further statutory notices issued by the Ld. AO. Consequently, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act on 28.11.2019, treating the entire cash deposit of Rs.17,25,929/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, observed that the appeal was delayed by 433 days and since the assessee had not furnished any valid explanation for such delay, he declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessment order was passed on 28.11.2019, but the assessee was residing outside India at Botswana during the period 23.09.2019 to 11.01.2021. The assessee was therefore unaware of the assessment proceedings as well as the order passed by the Ld. AO. In support, the Ld. AR furnished a copy of the assessee’s passport evidencing his stay outside India. It was further explained that the assessee’s wife returned to India on 11.09.2020, at the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. After completing the required 14 days of home isolation, she visited their bank, where she was informed by bank officials that the bank account of her husband had been attached by the revenue authorities. Only then did the assessee come to know about the assessment order. Thereafter, immediate steps were taken to file the appeal, which was finally filed on 28.10.2020 before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee’s Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 855 of 2025 Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri 4 control. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay of 433 days be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the condonation of such a long delay. She submitted that the assessee was negligent in not filing the return of income and not complying with statutory notices. Even after coming to know about the assessment, there was further delay in filing the appeal. Hence, she supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The chronology of events shows that the assessment order was passed on 28.11.2019, whereas the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) only on 28.10.2020, resulting in a delay of 433 days. On perusal of the assessee’s passport, placed before us, it is evident that he was continuously residing outside India at Botswana from 23.09.2019 to 11.01.2021. Therefore, he could not have received the assessment order directly nor taken immediate steps to file the appeal. The explanation that the assessee’s wife, upon returning to India during the Covid pandemic in September 2020, came to know about the attachment of the bank account and thereafter took steps to file the appeal, appears bona fide and is corroborated by documentary evidence. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 855 of 2025 Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri 5 the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 433 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation, we restore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 3rd October, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Sanjeeva Reddy Sirigiri, Ananthaiah Gudem (V) Vill Ananthaiah Gudem (PO) Nalgonda, 508247 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Nalgonda 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "