RAVI KUMAR DAMPURU,NELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, NELLORE

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.405/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ravi Kumar Dampuru Vs. Income Tax Officer NELLORE Ward 1 PAN: BHDP0229H Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Ramprasad T राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 30/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ravi Kumar Dampuru (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 28.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a copy of the affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the

reasons stated by the assessee and upon hearing the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

“Without prejudice to one another the appellant raises the following grounds of appeal: - 1. The impugned order passed by the NFAC is bad in law and on facts. 2. The Order passed by the NFAC passed in limine is bad in law and on facts. 3. The order passed by the NFAC confirming the addition made U/s 69A is bad in law and on facts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or amend and or to modify all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for the assessment year 2018-19 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 17.01.2024. However, there was a delay of 190 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

para no. 6 of the impugned order, submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, he nevertheless proceeded to adjudicate the issues on merits. The Ld. AR submitted that once the Ld. CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay, he ought not to have proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. It was further submitted that once the merits of the case were examined and adjudicated upon, it would amount to an implied condonation of delay by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to prosecute his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relying upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of limitation and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone through para no. 6 of the impugned appellate order, which is to the following effect: “6. Accordingly, appellant appeal is dismissed on merits as not maintainable as well, not withstanding its substantive dismissal in limine as discussed supra.” 9. On a perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) did not stop himself by dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation alone, but proceeded further to adjudicate

the issues involved in the appeal on merits. We further find that an identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Mandadi Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. ITO in ITA No. 214/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 vide order dated 26.11.2025. In para nos. 8 to 10 of the said order, the Tribunal has held as under:

Hyderabad, dated 15th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

S.No Addresses 1 Shri RAVI KUMAR DAMPURU 15/166 BESIDES MADHURA SWEETS , SUBEDARPET NELLORE 524001 ,Andhra Pradesh 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Income Tax Office, Nellore 524001 3 Pr. CIT , Tirupati 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.07.15 12:12:08 +05'30'