LAXMAN YADAV YADAGOLLA,HYDERBAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2470/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 September 2026AY 2019-20206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's illiteracy and the ex-parte assessment order which assessed the entire sale consideration as STCG without allowing cost of acquisition. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 31 days. The assessee claimed ignorance of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to illiteracy and lack of computer knowledge. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte assessment order, which disallowed cost of acquisition, was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 45,Section 148A,Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE

Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VP:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 01.09.2025 for assessment year 2019-20.

2.

There is a delay of ‘31’ days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is

ITA No.2470/Hyd/2025 Laxman Yadav Yadagolla :: 2 :: supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The Ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is not an educate to operate computer and further, the assessee can’t read & write any document. The assessee was not aware about the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and only when SMS were received by the assessee from the Department, the assessee got it verified through his children and found that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order on 01.09.2025 whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte. Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed the present appeal but, in the meantime, there was a delay of ‘31’ days in filing of appeal. The Ld.AR has submitted that the delay in filing of appeal is neither intentional or willful but due to non-communication of the impugned order to the assessee and therefore, if the delay is not condoned, the assessee will be put to great hardships and irreparable loss as the AO has assessed the entire sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gains (STCG).

3.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the conduct of the assessee shows a gross negligence towards the proceedings as the assessee has not participated in the assessment proceedings as well as no compliance to the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR has further submitted that the delay of each and every day has been explained by the assessee with relevant reasons. He has relied upon the decision dated 27.07.2023 of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos.180 to 185/Hyd/2023 in the case of Smt. Renuka.

ITA No.2470/Hyd/2025 Laxman Yadav Yadagolla :: 3 :: 4. We have heard rival submissions and carefully gone through the reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay. It is pertinent to note that the AO has passed ex parte assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and thereby assessed the entire sale consideration to tax as STCG without allowing the cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition. The assessee has explained the property in question is ‘ancestral property’ and therefore, the assessment of the entire sale consideration as STCG is highly arbitrary and unjustified. Further, the assessee has explained the reasons for delay of ‘31’ days, as the assessee has no knowledge of the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and only when the message received from Department got verified through his children, he found that the impugned order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on 01.09.2025, however, by that time, there was already delay in filing of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly when the assessment order is passed ex-parte whereby the AO assessed the entire sale consideration as STCG, if the delay is not condoned, it will result in gross injustice to the assessee and the assessee would be remediless. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee has sufficient cause for condonation of delay of ‘31’ days in filing of appeal. Hence, the delay of ‘31’ days in filing of appeal is condoned.

ITA No.2470/Hyd/2025 Laxman Yadav Yadagolla :: 4 :: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The impugned order of learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax ought to have given opportunity adhering the principles of natural justice and pass the order on merits rather dismissing the appeal on technical issue, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The notice issued under clause(d) of section 148A of the Act, was not issued in accordance with the provisions laid down under the said section, making the issuance of such notice bad in law and violation of procedure mentioned under section 148A of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The impugned Assessment Order has been passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer having no authority to pass such orders when the assessment is done as per the provisions of section 144B of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant denies himself liable to assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,13,05,000/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making an addition of Rs. 1,13,05,000/-, as undisclosed short term capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in making an addition of Rs. 1,13,05,000/-, which is sale consideration received from sale of property, without reducing the cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses, under the facts and circumstances of the case 8. The Appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest under section 234A and 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity. 6. We have heard the Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR and carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. The AO has passed an ex parte order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act whereby the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,13,05,000/- is assessed as STCG in respect of

ITA No.2470/Hyd/2025 Laxman Yadav Yadagolla :: 5 :: transaction of sale of immovable property. The AO has given the reasons for not allowing the cost of acquisition or cost of improvement as the assessee has not furnished any details or records despite of opportunities. It is pertinent to note that even in the best judgment assessment, the AO is expected to assess the correct income and not to make an addition arbitrarily. Even in case, when the assessee failed to produce the details and supporting evidence in respect of cost of acquisition, the document on the basis of which the income is assessed in the hands of the assessee generally gives relevant details of mode and timing of acquisition and therefore, Fair Market Value of the property on the date of acquisition or in the case of ancestral property on the date of acquisition by the previous owner has to be determined and allowed as deduction while computing the capital gains u/s.45 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte when there was no response from the assessee to the three notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and matter remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after verification and examination of the relevant facts and records to be filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the orders.

ITA No.2470/Hyd/2025 Laxman Yadav Yadagolla :: 6 :: 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 09th day of September, 2026, in Hyderabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (मंजूनाथा. जी) (िवजय पाल राव) (MANJUNATHA.G) (VIJAY PAL RAO) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT उपा�� /VICE-PRESIDENT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 09th September, 2026. TLN आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to: 1 िनधा�रती/The : LAXMAN YADAV YADAGOLLA, 11-2-1133/2, CRIMINAL COURT LINE, NEAR NAMAPLLY Assessee HOSPITAL, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD-500001, TELANGANA 2 राज�/ The Revenue : ITO, WARD-7(1), O/O ITO, WARD-7(1), SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD-500084, TELANGANA 3 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4 िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT Hyderabad. 5 गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Sr. Private Secretary Date: 2026.09.09 ITAT, Hyderabad RAO 11:38:42 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →