SUBRAHMANYAM THOTA,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 155/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 April 2026AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT decided to give the assessee another opportunity as the lower authorities did not provide an effective opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic regarding the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold an immovable property and did not pay capital gains tax. The Assessing Officer made additions for short-term capital gains and unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing, without condoning it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of a minor delay without condoning it and providing an effective opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam

For Appellant: Shri CVA Rama Rao, Sr.AR

PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, A.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1073912307(1) dated 03.03.2025, arising out of order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 17.12.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. In the above cited case, the assessee filed return of income, admitting total income of Rs.1.66 lakhs. Since the assessee sold an immovable property during the impugned assessment year for a sale consideration of Rs.31,00,000/- and did not pay capital gains tax on the same. Hence, a notice u/s 148 was issued and in pursuance of the notice, the assessee filed a return of income admitting the same income. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the assessment proceedings continued. In pursuance of these notices and also in pursuance of the final show cause notice also, the assessee did not respond to the queries raised by the Ld.AO. Hence, the assessment was completed by making addition with regard to short term capital gains. The Ld.AO has added certain cash deposits and as the source of the same was not explained, the same were added u/s 68 of the Act, while completing the assessment.

3.

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). While passing the appeal order, the Ld.CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before him. The Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned that the reasons for the delay were not satisfactorily explained. Then, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an order confirming the addition made by the Ld.AO.

4.

Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A), an appeal was filed before ITAT. The Ld.AR of the appellant has stated that there is a delay of only 4 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Since the delay was very minimal and also the assessee was not given proper opportunity to explain about the additions made by the Ld.AO, the Ld.AR has argued that the additions made by the Ld.AO be deleted and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside as the delay was merely 4 days and on that reason, the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the delay.

5.

The Ld.DR has argued that the assessee did not file required details despite sufficient opportunities were given. As far as the delay is concerned, the appellant could not give proper reasoning for filing the appeal with delay, it was stated. In view of the same, orders of the lower authorities may be confirmed.

6.

After hearing both the parties, the Bench decides to give one more opportunity to the appellant as no effective opportunity was given to the appellant by the lower authorities. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is very cryptic and it does not give any reasons for not condoning the delay while rejecting the appeal of the assessee. In view of the same, the Bench decides to remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and pass the order on merits after giving proper and effective opportunity to the appellant.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th April, 2026. (एस एस विश्िनेत्र रवि) (ओम्कारेश्िर धचदारा) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam, dated 24.04.2026. L.Rama/Sr.PS आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/The Assessee : Shri Subrahmanyam Thota, Door No.42-2/1-207, Kalam Residency, 1st Floor, Flat No.7, 6th Lane, Devi Nagar, Vijayawada 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), C.R.Building, Vijayawada

3.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam नवभधगीयप्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, विशाखापट्नम / DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 4. 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file

आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER LOKIREDDI RAMA cn=LOKIREDDI RAMA c=IN o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ou=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2026-04-28 10:48+05:30 Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →