JANISAIDA SHAIK,KRISHNA DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 645/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 April 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits and not dismissed it solely on the ground of delay. The delay was condoned with a cost, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file income tax returns and respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to additions and dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay. The assessee was a lecturer with a salary of Rs. 7 lakh and made substantial cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 139(1),Section 148

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/250/2025- 26/1079383443(1) dated 07.08.2025, arising out of order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 11.12.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. 2. In the above cited appeal, the appellant was required to furnish the sources of cash deposits made in his bank account to the extent of Rs.77,63,600/- and also required to explain the variation in respect of the time deposit made to the extent of Rs.20 lakh. The assessee did not file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and hence notice u/s 148 was issued. No return of income was filed by the assessee in compliance to notice u/s 148 also. As the assessee was engaged as a senior lecturer in Varsity Education Management Private Limited and received salary of Rs.7,11,735/-, the Ld.AO has asked the assessee to file his objections as to why the salary income was not admitted for income tax purposes. There was no response from the assessee. Similarly, the variation in respect of sale of shares to the extent of 5,665/- was also not explained by the assessee in response to the query raised by the Ld.AO. Since there was no response with regard to filing of return of income as well as notices issued by the Revenue, assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 by making total addition of Rs.1,04,81,000/-, while completing the assessment.

3.

Aggrieved by the additions made by the Ld.AO, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Authority, i.e. the Ld.CIT(A). The case was posted for hearing by the Ld.CIT(A) and the assessee did not comply with any of the notices. The Ld.CIT(A) has also noted that there is a delay of 418 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and since there is no sufficient cause for filing the appeal with such huge delay, the appeal of the assessee was not admitted. In other words, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

An appeal was filed before the ITAT against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), stating that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits and he did not address the specific contentions raised by the appellant in Form 35 and statement of facts. Apart from this, certain other legal grounds were also raised by the appellant, stating that the additional legal grounds raised are purely legal in nature and they do not require any investigation into the facts. In the light of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. NTPC Ltd (229 ITR 383) (SC), the counsel for the appellant prayed the Bench to admit the additional ground and dispose of the same as per law. To sum up, the Ld.AR of the appellant has argued that dismissing of the appeal is not maintainable on the ground of the delay of 418 days was not condonable for want of sufficient cause and without adjudicating the issues on merits, the order of First Appellate Authority is illegal and void.

5.

The Ld.DR has vehemently argued by stating that the appellant was non compliant for all the notices issued by the Department and despite having huge cash deposits, salary income, income from sale of shares etc., the appellant did not file return of income. As the appellant did not comply with any of the notices issued by the Ld.AO/Ld.CIT(A), the orders of the lower authorities are correct as the additions were made based on the specific information available with the Department. It was also argued that the appellant has not filed return of income originally as well as in pursuance of notice issued u/s 147 of the Act. As the assessee was not cooperating with the Department, the Revenue made additions and the same was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). It was argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is more than one year and as there was no sufficient reason for filing of an appeal with such inordinate delay, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the appeal of the assessee. It was also argued that the delay should not be condoned as there was no sufficient cause at all and the additions made by the Ld.AO should be confirmed.

6.

Rival submissions are heard. The Bench agrees with the argument of the Ld.AR of the appellant that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the issue on merits also and the appeal cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 297 CTR 614. After hearing the arguments of the Revenue as well as the Ld.AR of the appellant, the Bench decided to take a lenient view, as the appellant is only a lecturer in a private college. As the salary income was approximately Rs.7 lakh and as the appellant was not well versed with the faceless assessment scheme, it was decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/-. This amount should be paid within one month to AP State Legal Services Authority. . In view of the same, the issue is remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and pass an order on merits afresh after giving an 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. निर्धाऩरती/The Assessee : Shri Janisaida Shaik, Shaik Jani Saida, TF-3, Sadguru Residency, Chalasani Nagar, Kanuru, Krishna Dist. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

3.

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

आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER LOKIREDDI RAMA cn=LOKIREDDI RAMA c=IN o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ou=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2026-04-28 10:47+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 →