SUNKU SURENDRA,NELLORE V. ITO., WARD-1, NELLORE

ITA 1026/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Sunku Surendra against the order of the CIT (A)-Tirupati for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 2235 days, attributed to the assessee's health issues, including severe abdominal pain and a liver infection, which necessitated hospitalization and subsequent treatment in Chennai. The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the delay, including medical certificates and affidavits, but ultimately found the reasons provided insufficient to justify such a lengthy delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that during the original assessment proceedings, the assessee had conceded to the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which further complicated the grounds for the delayed appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775093 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors (67 ITR 471)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V V S C MURALIDHAR RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 1 of 9 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1026/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sunku Surendra NELLORE PAN:AYSPS4353G Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward – 1 NELLORE (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri VVSC Muralidhar Rao, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28/02/2019 of the learned CIT (A)-Tirupati, for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 2235 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was suffering from Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 2 of 9 severe abdominal pain and due to ill health, there was a severe attack of liver infection. For treatment, the assessee was admitted to hospital and on the request of the family members, the assessee was discharged on 05/03/2019. Thereafter, the assessee went to Chennai for better treatment where the assessee took the country medicine which took time to recover from the ailments and therefore, the assessee was not in a position to file the appeal in time. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to unavoidable circumstances. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors (67 ITR 471). He has also referred to the certificate issued by the Doctor. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Further, the assessee admitted the discrepancies in the income and conceded to the addition made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The learned CIT (A) also called for a remand report and then passed the impugned order. Therefore, seeking the condonation of delay by the assessee after more than 6 years is nothing but misuse of process of law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 3 of 9 4. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit which reads as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 4 of 9 5. Thus, the assessee has explained that due to ill health, the assessee was hospitalized for treatment on 25/02/2019 and then was discharged on 05/03/2019. The assessee has filed the copy of the certificate issued by the doctor as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 5 of 9 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 6 of 9 6. It is clear from the certificate that the said certificate was issued by the Doctor on 11/06/2025. The assessee has not filed any medical record to show that the assessee was admitted in the hospital or any prescription regarding the treatment of the assessee during the siad period of hospitalization or even at the time of discharge. Since there is no other medical record after 05/03/2019, the assessee has taken a plea that the assessee went to Chennai for further treatment and took country medicine instead of treatment by any qualified doctor. This is an inordinate delay of more than 6 years in filing the present appeal. In the absence of any record of admission and discharge of the assessee from the hospital, the certificate issued by the Doctor on his own letterhead instead of the letterhead of the hospital cannot be considered as a reasonable or justifiable explanation for such an inordinate delay, mush less a sufficient cause of the delay. There is no quarrel on the point that the Courts should take a liberal view while construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of the litigant to condone the delay in filing the appeal instead of deciding the matter on technicalities. However, at the same time, the litigant is also not allowed to use the process of law to achieve an ulterior purpose in underhand way by filing the appeal beleatedly. Therefore, for taking a lenient view to interpret the expression “sufficient cause” there must be a reasonable cause to justify the delay particularly, when there is an inordinate delay. We cannot overlook the apparent unacceptable and unsatisfactory reasons explained by the assessee when there is absolutely no justification for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 7 of 9 assessee has failed to made out a case that he has acted bonafidely and has also taken all possible steps within his power and control to file the appeal without unnecessary delay. Citing one instance of a treatment taken by the assessee for a short duration in the month of February 2019 cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for the delay of more than 6 years. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.7,15,240/- on the basis of the transactions of cash deposits in the bank account as well as cash book produced by the assessee in para 3 of the assessment order as undeer: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 8 of 9 7. It reveals from the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings, the learned Counsel for the assessee of the assessee agreed to the addition made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee was not having any explanation or record of purchase and sale of onions as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the assessee after a delay of more than 6 years is an attempt to save the limitation in underhand way without explaining the reasonable or justifiable cause for such an inordinate delay. Hence, we decline to condone the delay of 2235 days in filing the present appeal and consequently, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. We order accordingly. 8. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation, therefore, we do not propose to go into the merits of the appeal. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 4th September, 2025 Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1026 of 2025 Sunku Surendra Page 9 of 9 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Sunku Surendra, 6-696/1 Opp: SRKLR Lorry Office, Pappula Street, Stonehousepet, Nellore Town 524002, Nellore 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Aditya Nagar, Children’s Park Road, Besides Hanuman Temple, Nellore Town & City, Nellore 524002 3 Pr. CIT – Tirupati 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "