Balarajgoud Mamulola v. The ITO, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Balarajgoud Mamulola, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2022-23. The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as time-barred due to a delay of 261 days in filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the delay was due to non-receipt of the assessment order and the serious illness of his minor niece, Baby Aaradhya M, who was undergoing repeated hospitalizations and medical procedures. The assessee submitted medical records to support his claim of bona fide and due diligence.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned?
• 2. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct on facts and in law?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Purna Chander Ragam vs. ITO, Ward-11(1)

  Hyderabad bench

• Ketan Priyavadan Shah vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Vejalpur Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench

• M/s. Apitco Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad.

  Hyderabad bench

• Faiz-e-Garib Nawaz Trust Vs. CIT(E)

  Mumbai benchAllowed

• Balasubramaniam Sundaresan [Rep. by Legal Heir Umamaheshwari Sundaresan] v. The ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-22(6), Tambaram

• H Venkatesh Reddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  'C' Bench, Bangalore benchAY 2015-16Allowed