KATTERAPU GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY,KHAMMAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM

ITA 437/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 September 2026AY 2015-1626 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice. The Tribunal found the Section 148 notice to be barred by limitation and quashed the reassessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 3-day delay, which the CIT(A) refused to condone. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, raising grounds including the validity of the reassessment notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 24/08/2026

Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri KATTERAPU GOPALAKRISHNA REDDY (“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 23.10.2025 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Lear

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →