ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE - VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

ITA 689/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 August 2026AY 2015-1612 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessment years, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bona fide, fitting the criteria of 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal applied the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) for a lenient approach to avoid dismissing meritorious cases on technical grounds. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal noted that it was undisputed that the assessee is a university established by the State Legislature, substantially financed by the Government, and its income is claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). However, it was also an admitted fact that the assessee did not file its return of income or provide any explanation before the AO and CIT(A). Considering the claim of exemption and the lack of effective representation, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to file relevant details and pay a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the ITAT Bar Association, Hyderabad, for its lackadaisical approach. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Acharya Nagarjuna University, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2018-19. There was a delay of 160 days and 130 days, respectively, in filing these appeals. The assessee attributed the delay to administrative and procedural difficulties, including frequent changes in key university officials holding additional charge, which hampered the decision-making process for filing appeals. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay. The University is established by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature and is substantially funded by the Government, UGC, and Social Welfare Department. Its income is claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not file returns for AY 2015-16, and assessments were made under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B, with total income determined at Rs. 99,39,47,588/-. The assessee also failed to appear or file details before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2018-19 should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to bona fide administrative and procedural difficulties beyond the University's control, including frequent changes in officers holding additional charge, which delayed the approval process for filing appeals. The delay was neither wilful nor deliberate. The assessee relied on the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471 SC) for a lenient approach. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, stating that the appeals were not filed within the prescribed period. However, it was fairly submitted that the issue should be decided in accordance with law based on available facts. 2. Whether the matter should be set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, given the assessee's claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and its failure to effectively present its case before the lower authorities. Assessee's Contention: Due to non-availability of regular office bearers and heads of departments, the University could not effectively pursue its case before the AO and CIT(A). As the income is claimed to be exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), the matter should be remanded to the AO for one more opportunity to explain its case with relevant evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee's failure to file returns or explain its case before the AO and CIT(A). However, in the alternative, the Revenue suggested remanding the matter to the AO for fresh verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate, but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Ap

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →