SHAHULHAMEED THAHA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM V. ITO, WARD 1(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 499/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shahulhameed Thaha, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated an income escapement assessment based on information that the appellant sold a residential property for Rs. 60,00,000. The appellant failed to comply with the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading the AO to pass a best judgment assessment adding Rs. 47,01,500 to the appellant's income. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 156 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The appellant then approached the ITAT, which found merit in the appellant's reasons for the delay, primarily his serious health issues, and thus condoned the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717288 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SREERAM SHEKAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 499/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shahulhameed Thaha, .......... Appellant TC 18/1937, Varuvilakathu Veedu, Thirumala PO, Trivandrum [PAN: ADJPT 6999 H] vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Sreeram Shekar, CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.81.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.08.2025 O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 31.08.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19was filed by the appellant. However, the AO formed an opinion that income escapement assessment to tax based on the information that appellant sold a residential property on 23/06/2017 for a Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 499/Coch/2025 Shahul Hameed Thaha consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- and accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') issued to the appellant. Appellant neither complied with the notice u/s. 148 nor furnished any information. In these circumstances, the AO was constrained to pass the best judgment assessment vide order dated 31/02/2023 making addition of Rs. 47,01,500/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 156 days. The learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay by holding that appellant had not shown sufficient reason for delay. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. At the outset, I find that the present appeal is filed with a delay of 251 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is suffering from serious heart ailment and medical certificate in this regard also enclosed. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. I find that learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 152 days and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. It was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that appellant was undergoing Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 499/Coch/2025 Shahul Hameed Thaha treatment for heart ailment resulting in delay in filing the appeal. I am of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) ought not have refused to condone the delay having regard to the reasons given for delay and adjudicated the issue on merits. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2025. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 13th July, 2025 vr/- Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin Printed from counselvise.com "