SYED KHADER HUSSAIN,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 122/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Syed Khader Hussain against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were dismissed in limine due to delays in filing. The appeals were related to an assessment order and a penalty order for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee, a retired Line Inspector, argued that the delays were due to his lack of education and unfamiliarity with legal procedures, compounded by reliance on a tax consultant who used an email for notices that the assessee did not access. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delays and remanded the case for a fresh examination of the assessment and penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 102972 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K.C.DEVDAS
• Keywords: Set aside; Salary income; Bonafide belief
• Section: 147; 148; 10

Judgement Text

" ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB- A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.121 & 122/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Khader Hussain Hyderabad PAN:ADQPH6382R Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the composite orders dated, 05/12/2024 of the learned CIT (A)- NFAC Delhi, arising from the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 as well as the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act respectively for the A.Y 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 2 of 8 ITA No.121/Hyd/2025 1. Under the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay of 350 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Learned C.I.T(A)/NFAC failed to note that the Appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. 3. The Appellant craves to add, modify or amend the above grounds anytime during the course of appeal.” ITA No.122/Hyd/2025 1. Under the fact and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Learned C.I.T(A)/NFAC failed to note that the Appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. 3. The Appellant craves to add, modify or amend the above grounds anytime during the course of appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine, as barred by limitation. He has pointed out that the assessee was working as a Line Inspector with the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company and retired on 31/12/2016 from services. The assessee is not a well educated person and therefore, is not well versed with the procedures and proceedings pending before the learned CIT (A). He has filed the affidavit of the assessee to explain the delay of 11 months and 5 months in filing the respective appeals before the learned CIT (A) against the assessment order as well as the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the Act. Since the assessee was ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 3 of 8 not aware about the procedure and was dependent on the Tax Consultant regarding the proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act, the notices were issued by the Tax Authorities on the email ID used by the Tax Consultant for filing the return of income and therefore, the assessee being not convergent with the technologies and use of computer was not aware about the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the assessee was under bonafide belief that, after filing the return, no further steps or compliance was required. Due to lack of knowledge and old age, the assessee was not aware about the order passed by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned AR has thus, pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) may be condoned. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that, it is a case of complete gross negligence on the part of the assessee who has neither participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer nor filed the appeal in time before the learned CIT (A). 5. We have considered the rival submission and gone through the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee. The reason for delay in filing the appeals have been explained in in para 8 to 14 of the affidavit as under: ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 4 of 8 ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 5 of 8 6. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte order and the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, we incline to condone the delay of 11 months and 5 months in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (A) arising from the assessment order as well as the penalty order passed u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 subject to cost of Rs.2500/- for each appeal to be paid to the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order. 7. The learned AR of the assessee has pleaded that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of unexplained deposits in the Bank Account, whereas the assessee was having only the salary income and retirement benefit funds as source of the deposits in the Bank Account. However, since the ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 6 of 8 assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings, the relevant details and record could not be filed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the relevant record to be filed by the assessee. 8. On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the relevant records. 9. Having considered the rival submission as well as perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.49,75,438/- in para 7 as under: 10. From the above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer was having the information that the amount in question was received by the assessee from the Telangana Southern Power ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 7 of 8 Distribution Company on his retirement, but the same was considered by the Assessing Officer as salary and made the addition without giving benefit u/s 10 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit the relevant record, details and submissions. 11. Since the matter in quantum appeal has been set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer, therefore, the order of the learned CIT (A) arising from the penalty levied u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is also set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for taking necessary steps, if need arises as per the outcome of the set aside proceedings in quantum/assessment. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing i.e. on 16th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 16th April, 2025 Vinodan/sps ITA Nos 121 and 122 of 2025 Syed Khader Hussain Page 8 of 8 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Syed Khader Hussain, 7-2-215/1, Ashok Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad 500018 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 11(1), Signature Towers, Sy. No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy. No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp: Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally, RR District 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "