Case Law Details
Smt. Malleshwari Naramulla Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Digital Illiteracy Is Sufficient Cause: ITAT Hyderabad Condones Delay & Restores Appeal
Hyderabad ITAT ‘SMC’ Bench, in Malleshwari Naramulla vs. ITO (ITA No.1195/Hyd/2025, AY 2016-17, order dated 24.12.2025), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes by condoning a 96-day delay and restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The assessee’s appeal before NFAC was dismissed in limine due to delay. Before the Tribunal, the assessee explained—by affidavit—that she was educated only up to 7th standard, not conversant with electronic communication, did not receive the assessment order physically, and became aware of the assessment only upon receipt of a penalty show-cause notice dated 19.06.2024, after which she promptly filed the appeal.
The ITAT held that these reasons constituted “sufficient cause”, emphasizing that a liberal approach must be adopted to advance substantial justice, particularly where there is no mala fide or deliberate negligence. The Revenue did not object to condonation or remand.
Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the NFAC order, and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after granting due opportunity, keeping all issues open (including jurisdictional grounds and additions). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by Smt. Malleshwari Naramulla (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 25.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC in dismissing the appeal in limine.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in rejecting the petition requesting for condonation of delay without appreciating the reasons submitted by the appellant.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have considered the fact that the delay is for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant and is not intentional.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have decided the grounds of appeal agitated before him.
7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have seen that Assessing Officer Ward-11(1), Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the IT Act.
8. The additions made by the Assessing officer towards cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/- in the bank account and the investment in time deposits of Rs. 38,00,000/- are arbitrary and are not based on actual transactions as per the bank statements.
9. The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234A of Rs.14,05,950/-; u/s 234B of Rs.14,83,200/-.
10. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016–17 dated 11.03.2024. However, there was a delay of 96 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is educated only up to 7th standard and is not conversant with income-tax proceedings, particularly the electronic mode of communication. It was submitted that the assessee did not receive the assessment order physically and was also not familiar with sending or receiving communications through email. Consequently, the assessee could not come to know immediately about the passing of the assessment order by the Ld. AO. It was further submitted that the assessee came to know about the assessment order only when the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 19.06.2024 proposing levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Immediately thereafter, the assessee contacted a tax consultant and filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 16.07.2024. It was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of the delay in the interest of justice. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds without adjudication on merits, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He also fairly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. We find that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been duly explained by the assessee by way of an affidavit. The reasons stated by the assessee, namely limited educational qualification, lack of familiarity with electronic communication, non-receipt of the assessment order physically, and immediate action taken upon becoming aware of the assessment order pursuant to the penalty show cause notice dated 19.06.2024, constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of law. It is well settled that while considering a petition for condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when no mala fide intention or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee. In the present case, we find that the delay was bona fide and occurred due to reasonable causes. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
7. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all documentary evidence and submissions in support of his claims. At the same time, we direct the assessee to cooperate fully in the remand proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on December 2025.
Author Bio
