CHANDANA MEREDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

As per the information available in the Insight Portal of the Income-tax Department, the assessee had made time deposits aggregating to Rs.17,00,000/- with Telangana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated and an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 06.04.2022. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 12.04.2022 was issued. Since the assessee did not file the return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, notices under section 142(1) of the Act, were issued on various occasions calling

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 258 days. The assessee explained that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but had occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and requested that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. However, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, observed that no specific reasons or supporting documentary evidence had been produced to justify the delay of 258 days. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 249(3) of the Act, and accordingly rejected the petition for condonation of delay. Since the appeal was held to be barred by limitation, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Kiran Manohar, Advocate submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in ‘limine’ without condoning the delay of 258 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted

The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the A.O. had issued show cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 23.03.2022 and thereafter passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 06.04.2022 and issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 12.04.2022. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, dated 12.04.2022 is barred by limitation as the period of six years expired on 31.03.2022. The learned counsel further submitted that, though proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated before expiry of limitation, the final notice

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that, the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Senior A.R. further submitted that, after amendment of the provisions relating to reopening of assessment with effect from 01.04.2021, the limitation for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act has been extended up to ten years in cases where income escaping assessment exceeds Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is within the time prescribed under law. The learned Senior A.R. further submitted that, the proviso to section 149(1) of the Act, is applicable only in cases where limitation had already expired before 01.04.2021 and where limitation was still available as on 01.04.2021, the amended provisions would apply. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Salil Gulati vs. ACIT reported in (2023) 455 ITR 24 and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Ramadoss Srikanthi vs. ACIT reported in (2025) 481 ITR 126. 8 Chandana Mereddy

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. Before adverting to the legal issue relating to validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act, we shall first deal with the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There is a delay of 258 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has explained that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the very assumption of juri iction under section 147 of the Act, we are of the considered view that, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. At the same time, we are of the view that the assessee was not diligent in pursuing her case before the first appellate authority within the prescribed period. Therefore, while condoning the delay of 258 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it fit to impose nominal costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), which shall be paid to the ITAT Bar Association, Hyderabad, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and produce proof of payment before the Registry. Accordingly, we condone the 9 Chandana Mereddy delay of 258 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to payment of the aforesaid costs.

Having disposed of the issue relating to condonation of delay, we now proceed to examine the legal issue regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. We find that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the A.O. on 12.04.2022. We find that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the notice under section 148 of the Act, has been issued by the A.O. on 12.04.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 which is beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per the unamended provisions of section 149 of the Act, the notice under section 148 of the Act, could have been issued within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year and accordingly, the limitation expired on 31.03.2022. 10. We further find that, though as per the amended provisions of section 149 of the Act, the limitation for reopening of assessment has been extended up to ten years in cases where income escaping assessment exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-, however, the first proviso to section 149 clearly provides that no notice

We also find that, the Hon'ble Juri ictional Telangana High Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd July, 2026. श्री विजय पाल राि (मंजूनाथ जी) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MANJUNATHA G.) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 22.07.2026. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तनर्ााररती/The Assessee : CHANDANA MEREDDY, HNO 203, PRASHANTHI APTS, INDIRA NAGAR, ROAD NO.1, KOTHAPET, HYDERABAD-500035, TELANGANA 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : ITO, WARD-9(1), O/O ITO, WARD-9(1), I.T TOWERS, AC GUARDS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-, TELANGANA.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. तवभागीयप्रतततनतर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गार्ाफ़ाईि / Guard file