RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY RAGULA,VINUKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARSAROPETA

ITA 267/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 August 2026AY 2015-1610 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 150 days, citing the principle of substantial justice and the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being delayed by 150 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to inactive email and not receiving notices, making it impossible to file on time. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation request.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM DB-BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G

Pronounced: 05.08.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 20.01.2026 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) Ground: Failure of Natural Justice via Empty Formalism (Rule 127

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →