VENKATA SRINUVASA RAO KOTLA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 180/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 July 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for bona fide reasons and ought to have been condoned. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in limine.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 due to cash deposits of Rs. 72,98,820 in the assessee's bank account without filing a return. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 250,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 31/12/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the

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 →