KOTTU VENKATA RAMARAO,TADEPALLIGUDEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TADEPALLIGUDEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 833/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the absence of any application for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was delayed by 822 days. The assessee failed to file an application for condonation of delay despite being notified by the registry.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to a substantial delay and the failure to provide reasons for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,

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 26/07/2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

ITA 833/VIZ/2025 KOTTU VENKATA RAMARAO VS. ITO

(for short, “the Act”), dated 13/12/2019. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2) The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in which an addition of Rs.23,10,000/- is made u/s 68 of the IT Act. 3) The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions u/s 68 are not attracted, therefore, erred in confirming an addition of Rs.23,10,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4) The learned Commissioner erred in assuming that non-appearance to notices is deliberate and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.23,10,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5) The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee is only an agriculturist and not well versed with the email communication and the person who has filed the appeal in Form No.35 has not taken care in attending to the notices. In the facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner ought to have given an opportunity by sending the notice by post OR by notice server, therefore, erred in confirming the addition of Rs.23,10,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 6) The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessees only source of income is, income from agriculture, in the facts and circumstances he could not have earned an amount of Rs.23,10,000/- in the year 2016-17, to attract the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act. 7) The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.”

2.

At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 822 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Also, it is further noticed that despite the fact that assessee appellant was put to notice by the Registry vide notice issued on 03/02/2026, inter alia, pointing out that the appeal is time barred by 822 days, but till date no application for condonation explaining the reasons leading to the delay has been filed before us.

3.

We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations are constrained to dismiss the appeal s not maintainable.

ITA 833/VIZ/2025 KOTTU VENKATA RAMARAO VS. ITO

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA RAVISH SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 08th July, 2026 OKK, SPS Copy to: KOTTU VENKATA RAMARAO, 4-44-6 P & T COLONY, NEAR VASAVI 1 PARK, TADEPALLIGUDEM-534101, ANDHRA PRADESH

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, 2 TADEPALLIGUDAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-534101

3 THE PCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →