IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.446/Viz/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Alapati Murali Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.26-3-317, 5th Lane Ward-2(2) Ashok Nagar Guntur Guntur [PAN ALVPA6388D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR Respondent by Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, DR Date of Hearing 18.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2019 ORDER Per Shri D.S.Sunder Singh, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by revenue against order of Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)]-1, Guntur vide Appeal No.10076/2017-18 dated 25.06.2018 for Assessment Year (A.Y.)2014-15. 2 I.T.A. No.446/Viz/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Alapati Murali Krishna, Guntur 2. In this case, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) with delay of 278 days. assessee filed condonation petition requesting to condone delay. During hearing, Ld.A.R submitted that this case was represented by one Shri Jonnalagadda Ramaiah Choudhary, ITP, who was given authorization to represent case. During pendency of appeal proceedings, authorized representative of assessee was hospitalized and could not attend to office work and subsequently expired on 25.03.2017. Due to lack of proper knowledge of Income Tax proceedings, assessee could not focus on follow up action of assessment proceedings and subsequent filing of appeal against order of AO. On being pressurised for payment of demand by department, assessee could understand post assessment consequences and approached present AR for remedial measures. On advice of Ld.AR, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) with delay of 278 days. Though assessee made request for condonation of delay, Ld.CIT(A) did not condone delay and dismissed appeal in- limine. Hence, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 3. During appeal hearing, Ld.AR argued that Authorised Representative who was looking after case was expired and 3 I.T.A. No.446/Viz/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Alapati Murali Krishna, Guntur assessee was unaware of passing assessment order and procedure for filing appeal. Since there is sufficient and reasonable cause for filing appeal with delay, Ld.AR requested to condone delay and remit appeal back to file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide appeal on merits. 4. On other hand, Ld.DR vehemently opposed for condoning delay and remitting matter back to file of Ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard both parties and perused material placed on record. In this case, during pendency of assessment proceedings, authorized representative who was representing case had expired, because of which assessee suffered for lack of proper guidance. Hence, assessee could not make follow up assessment and take remedial measures for filing appeal. Only on pressing demand by AO, assessee realized seriousness and approached present Counsel, who has filed appeal before CIT(A) with delay of 278 days. In instant case, ITP had expired and fact was not disputed by AO. assessee would not get any benefit by not filing appeal. Therefore we are of considered opinion that there is sufficient and reasonable 4 I.T.A. No.446/Viz/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Alapati Murali Krishna, Guntur cause for condoning delay in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Hence we condone delay of 278 days and remit appeal back to file of CIT(A) with direction to decide appeal on merits after giving opportunity to assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21st August, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Visakhapatnam Dated 21.08.2019 L.Rama, SPS 5 I.T.A. No.446/Viz/2018, A.Y.2014-15 Alapati Murali Krishna, Guntur Copy of order forwarded to 1. Assessee- Alapati Murali Krishna, D.No.26-3-317, 5th Lane Ashok Nagar, Guntur 2. Revenue - Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Guntur 3. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur 4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur 5.DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. Guard file BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam Alapati Murali Krishna v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Guntur