Auto-Populated Email and Duplicate Appeal Filings Cannot Justify Inordinate Delay: ITAT Hyderabad Dismisses Condonation Petition in Vedure Mahender Reddy Vs DCIT

Overview of the Case

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Vedure Mahender Reddy Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad), ITA No. 988/Hyd/2026, adjudicated upon a condonation of delay petition filed in connection with an appeal pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. The order, pronounced on 16th October 2026, declined to condone a delay exceeding one year and nine months in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee's explanations — centering on non-receipt of the first appellate order, an auto-populated email address in Form No. 35, and alleged confusion arising from the pendency of duplicate appeals — were examined against the documentary record and found to be either inadequately substantiated or internally inconsistent. The appeal was consequently dismissed at the threshold, without the Tribunal proceeding to examine the merits of the underlying tax dispute.

Background and Procedural History

The assessee, Vedure Mahender Reddy, had challenged the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The original assessment itself had been completed on 26.12.2019. The first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was filed in October 2021, reportedly after the assessee became aware of the assessment during the COVID-19 period. That appeal was reportedly dismissed on account of delay attributed to pandemic-related lockdowns.

When the matter eventually reached the Tribunal, the assessee sought condonation of the delay in filing, supported by an affidavit. The core narrative presented was that the appellate order had never been served on the assessee, that he discovered its existence only in January 2026 — when the Department raised an enquiry regarding the outstanding tax demand — and that steps for filing the Tribunal appeal were initiated immediately upon such discovery.

Grounds Raised by the Assessee in Support of Condonation

The Authorised Representative put forward three principal grounds before the Tribunal:

The assessee submitted that he had never opted for service of notices or communications through email while filing Form No. 35. It was contended that the email address appearing in the form had been imported automatically from the assessee's profile on the income-tax e-filing portal and did not reflect any conscious election to receive electronic communications. Since the assessee had not actively provided or consented to the use of that email address for service, he remained unaware of the appellate order.

2. Knowledge of Disposal Acquired Only in January 2026

According to the affidavit, the assessee first came to know of the disposal of the appeal when the Department initiated an enquiry regarding the outstanding demand. Upon being informed, the authorised representative downloaded a copy of the order from the system on 9th January 2026. The date of download was treated as the date of service of the order, and the appeal to the Tribunal was filed thereafter without further delay.

3. Duplicate Appeals Created a Bona Fide Belief of Pendency

The Authorised Representative drew the Tribunal's attention to copies of Form No. 35 dated 30.09.2021, 01.10.2021 and 13.10.2021, and connected documents placed on record. It was explained that the assessee's counsel had inadvertently filed three additional appeals against the same assessment order. The assessee continued to receive communications in those duplicate appeals and responded to them, which led him to believe that the original appeal was still pending before the CIT(A). The delay was characterised as neither deliberate nor intentional.