SIVA PRASAD VEDULA, BHILAI,BHILAI V. ITO, WARD-(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

ITA 199/RPR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Siva Prasad Vedula, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which had dismissed his appeal on the grounds of limitation, specifically not condoning a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and that the dismissal was in limine without discussing the contents of the assessment order and Form 35. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO, where it was held that the assessee should be given a final opportunity to explain the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter for a detailed examination of the delay's sufficiency and subsequent adjudication on merits if the delay is condoned.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 849794 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Raipur
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2026
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.199/RPR/2026 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Siva Prasad Vedula Qtr-1/B, Street-37, Sector-10, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) PAN: ADGPV7445M .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Siva Prasad Vedula Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.199/RPR/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.01.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. Submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR is recorded and the matter is heard on merits. 3. At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation by not condoning the delay of 598 days since sufficient cause was not established by the assessee in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to examine the sufficiency of cause and provide one final opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant documents/evidences to justify late filing of appeal in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. 4. I find that on similar facts and circumstances, this Bench had provided one opportunity to the assessee to explain sufficiency of cause in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Printed from counselvise.com 3 Siva Prasad Vedula Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.199/RPR/2026 Sansthan Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), ITA No. 553/RPR/2025, A.Y.2023-24, dated 13.11.2025, wherein it was held and observed as follows: “4. The issue to be looked into in the present matter is whether the assessee was always vigilant enough regarding proceedings i.e. the appeal to be filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and what are the genuine efforts that were conducted by the assessee with his Counsel/Chartered Accountant so to file the appeal on time. In other words, it has to be seen whether the assessee was vigilant assessee, bonafide assessee and whether he has made sufficient efforts to ensure filing of its case before the first appellate authority on time. After verifying all these areas, only one can understand whether such ground of delay would be condoned in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of non- prosecution and the same jurisprudence transcends into the situation that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on ground of delay only without referring and discussing the contents of the assessment order and Form 35 and its annexures. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity Printed from counselvise.com 4 Siva Prasad Vedula Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.199/RPR/2026 of being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside. 8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with specific direction to the assessee to demonstrate sufficient cause for such delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act and if the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is satisfied and the delay is condoned as per law, thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall proceed to adjudicate the grounds on merits complying with the principles of natural justice. I order accordingly. 6. As per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 25th day of March, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 25th March, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. Printed from counselvise.com 5 Siva Prasad Vedula Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.199/RPR/2026 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "