MADHAVI YADLAPALLI,NANDIGAMA MANDAL vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 800/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 September 2026AY 2018-199 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable due to vague reasons and the assessee's apparent negligence in waiting for the outcome of lower proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file her return of income for AY 2018-19. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated, and the assessment was completed under Section 144. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment and directed a fresh assessment. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, but the appeal was filed with a significant delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. The secondary issues involved the validity of notices and the computation of capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 251,Section 151(ii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 14.01.2025, pertaining to the assessment

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.

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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →