KORIPALLI VENKATA SRINIVAS,DHARBAREVU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALAKOL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 117/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 July 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal both on the grounds of inordinate delay in filing and on merits. The reasons for delay were not considered sufficient, and the assessee failed to counter the AO's findings on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in aquaculture, declared income based on Section 44AD. The Assessing Officer (AO) found discrepancies between declared receipts and bank credits, estimating income at 8% of gross receipts. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the AO's estimation of income on merits is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD,Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, विशाखापत्तनम पीठ, विशाखापत्तनम INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री उदयन दास गुप्ता, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा, माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 117/VIZ/2026 निर्धारणवर्ा/AssessmentYear:2017-18) KORIPALLI VENKATA INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRINIVAS WARD-1 2-117, DHARBAREVU VILLAGE , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEAR RAMALAYAM , Vs. WARD-1, PALAKOL-534 260 NARSAPUR, NARASAPURAM- PALACOLE-534260, ANDHRA 534260, ANDHRA PRADESH PRADESH अपीलधर्थीAppellant प्रत्यथी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of CSGPK7309N Assessee:

अपीलधर्थीद्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate प्रत्यथीद्वारा/Respondentrepresented by: Sri Gunnu Sudhir, Sr AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 16-Jun-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 10-Jul-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE AM : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023017433(1) dated 08-Jan-2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 arising out of the order passed by the

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas Ld.AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the A.Y.2017-18.

2.

In the above cited appeal, the assessee is deriving income from aqua culture and filed return of income admitting net income of Rs.10,12,920/- and the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny for examining the issue of “Large cash deposits” in the bank account during the year. After taking up the case for scrutiny, the Ld.AO issued notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act and required the assessee to file certain information including production of required books of accounts. The Ld.AO has also written to the banks of the appellant and obtained the bank statements as per the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, the assessee has stated that his only source of income is from aqua culture and the same is done on the land owned by his parents. Before the Ld.AO, the assessee has submitted that no regular books of accounts were maintained as there are certain practical difficulties while dealing with small farmers. Hence, estimated his income by opting for the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. The assessee has stated that the gross aqua culture receipts during the year are to the extent of Rs.1.9 crores and a total net income of Rs.1.41 lakhs was admitted by opting for the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. As mentioned above, the Ld.AO has obtained the bank statements of the assessee during the

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas year under consideration for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and total credits in the bank account from various prawn processing units was found to be Rs.2.36 crores as against the receipts admitted by the assessee of Rs.1.90 crores. As mentioned above, the assessee stated that no books of accounts were maintained and hence opted for the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. While concluding the assessment order, the Ld.AO has observed that gross aqua receipts found to be more than Rs.2 crore and hence the assessee under statutory obligation to maintain books of account and get them audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not maintained the books of account and hence opted for estimation of gross aqua receipts. After obtaining the statements of bank account from the concerned bank, the Ld.AO found gross aqua receipts are Rs.2.36 crores and the same were taken as total receipts from the aqua culture income. While completing the scrutiny assessment, ITO, Ward-1, Palakole has estimated the income of the assessee by taking 8% of the gross receipts, which comes to Rs.18.93 lakhs. After giving deduction under Chapter VI-A, the net income of the assessee was taken into account while raising the tax demand.

3.

Aggrieved by the addition made, an appeal was filed before Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Delhi and the case was posted by this First Appellate

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas Authority. This First Appellate Authority had sent 4 notices of hearing on various dates over a period of two years and since there was no response from the appellant, addition was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, stating that proper opportunity was given to the appellant and still the appellant has not filed any supporting material for his appeal. As the appellant has not countered the detailed findings and reasons given by the Ld.AO, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the Ld.AO and decided the issue against the appellant and the grounds of appeal were dismissed accordingly.

4.

Aggrieved by this order of the Ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT stating that the Ld.Addl.CIT(A) ought to have held the income of the appellant at 6% of the total turnover and not at 8% as adopted by the Ld.AO. The disputed amount is Rs.4.73 laks in this regard. The second ground of appeal before ITAT is that the actual gross receipts from sales of prawn was only Rs.2.15 crore, but not 2.36 crores as taken by the Ld.AO.

5.

At the outset, it is observed that the appeal was filed before ITAT with the delay of 691 days. The Ld.AR of the appellant has stated the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal are that the appellant is not a computer literate and hence, the Income Tax Practitioner (“ITP”) has created his login credentials for the purpose of e-filing of the return and used their email for online communication. Since the ITP is

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas looking after the communication from Income Tax Department, he has not pursued the matters with the ITP. Moreover, his father passed away during this period and he had to perform the last rites. The Ld.AR of the appellant has relied on certain cases law and finally mentioned that there are no latches or malafides or negligence on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal with the delay and hence the delay may be condoned. An affidavit was filed by the CA (for ITP) who is practicing at Palakole, West Godavari Dist and most of the clients are from rural areas, who are not well versed with the computer operations. At the instance of the appellant, certain login credentials were created by his office staff and the office staff of the Chartered Accountant has somehow missed taking up the appeal with ITAT and hence the delay of 691 days occurred. An affidavit was also filed by the appellant, where similar reasons were mentioned.

6.

As far as the merits are concerned, no fresh evidence was filed nor any supporting material was found to counter the arguments of Ld.AO in his assessment order. In other words, no mistakes were found from the order of Ld.AO except stating that the percentage of total profit ought to have been estimated at 6% and not at 8%. There is no argument by the Ld.AR of the appellant with regard to the discrepancies in the turnovers mentioned in the assessment order.

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas 7. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that since the Ld.AR of the appellant did not counter any of the arguments and reasoning given by the Ld.AO, the additions made in the assessment should be upheld. Since there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the Ld.DR opposed admission of the appeal itself by stating that the reasons mentioned in the affidavit are very vague and there is no evidence with regard to the averments made in the affidavits.

8.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record, the Bench decides to dismiss the appeal of the assessee on both counts – delay in filing of appeal and on merits. The appellant has filed the appeal with the delay of almost 700 days and the reasons mentioned were death of father of the appellant and also the CA has not taken proper care in filing the appeal. The failure of the CA to file an appeal is not the correct reason to condone the delay, because, it is the duty of the appellant to pursue with his CA and see that the appeal is filed within time limits. Since, it is rural area, it can be understood, if there is small delay of a month or two in filing the appeal, but in this case, the delay is almost 700 days and there is no sufficient reason for such inordinate delay. The reasons given in the affidavits are not convincing, because negligence on the part of the appellant to take up

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas his appeal proceedings does not come under sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence, the appeal is not admitted and dismissed.

9.

Coming to the merits also, there is no convincing reason as to why the additions made by the Ld.AO are incorrect. From the assessment order, it is seen that the Ld.AO wrote to the banks and obtained copies of bank statements u/s 133(6) of the Act and gave an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for discrepancy with respect to the turnover and the total credits mentioned in the bank account. The appellant could not counter the reasoning given by the Ld.AO either before the ld.AO or before the appellate forum. As the appellant himself is opting for the provisions of section 44AD, profit percentage estimated by the Ld.AO is correct and there is no need to disturb the findings of the Ld.AO. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed for filing the appeal with the delay and on merits too.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962 by placing the details on the notice board on 10th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (उदयन दास गुप्ता) (ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam, dated 10.07.2026. L.Rama/Sr.PS

ITA No.117/Viz/2026 Koripalli Venkata Srinivas

Copy to:

KORIPALLI VENKATA SRINIVAS, 2-117, DHARBAREVU VILLAGE , NEAR 1 RAMALAYAM , NARSAPUR, NARASAPURAM-534260, ANDHRA PRADESH

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, 2 PALAKOL-534 260, PALACOLE-534260, ANDHRA PRADESH

3 THE PCIT / CIT 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →