NAGA RAMA SAI LAKSHMI TETALI,RAMACHANDRAPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 442/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2026AY 2016-1716 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing a liberal approach to procedural delays. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the appellant.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the AO under Section 147 and by the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for delay without adjudicating on merits, citing insufficient cause for delay and lack of response from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and ITAT was sufficiently explained, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 249(2),Section 148,Section 149(1)(a)(b),Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

For Appellant: Shri Badicala Yadagiri
Pronounced: 29.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, A.M.: These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1063830023(1) dated 01.04.2024 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1078019335(1) dated 30.06.2025 arising out of orders passed by Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively.

ITA No.442/Viz/2025, A.Y.2016-17

2.

In the above cited appeal, assessee took the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 dt.01.03.2025 and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 250 dt. 30.06.2025, are bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 30 days despite the fact that the reasons for the delay were clearly set out in the statement of facts, thus failed to exercise his discretionary powers in accordance with law under Section 249(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act on dt. 11.04.2023 is barred by limitation considering the provisions of section 149(1)(a)(b) of the IT Act, therefore, the consequential order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of RS. 3,24,52,281/- on account of alleged unexplained bank deposits, without properly appreciating the source explained of such deposits.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.10,05,682/- under the head LTCG without appreciating that the addition made is legally untenable. 6. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,06,844/- relating to the alleged undisclosed business income. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) contrary to the provisions of the IT Act, therefore, the additions made therein be deleted in the interest of justice and equity.

3.

From the above, it is observed that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant as there is no sufficient cause for filing the appeal before him with the delay of 84 days. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the appellant has stated that she is dependent on tax consultant relating to the tax matters and the persons who are having knowledge about income tax provisions and she was not aware of the assessment order until it was brought to her notice by the tax consultant to whose e- mail ID notices and assessment order was sent. When the tax consultant brought it to the notice of the appellant, she immediately took necessary steps to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). It was also stated that the appellant is not well and suffering from ill health and she is not able to carry on the business and hence the business was also closed. In view of the above, the appellant requested the Ld.CIT(A)

to condone this delay and an order may be passed deleting the addition on merits.

4.

The Ld.CIT(A) is not convinced with the reasoning given by the appellant, because, it is not sufficient cause u/s 249(3) of the Act. As the Ld.CIT(A) is not satisfied with the reasoning given by the appellant, the appeal was not admitted and consequently dismissed. From the order of the Ld.CIT(A), it is observed that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the case on merits even though there are certain “grounds of appeal” raised on merits also.

5.

Since the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the case of the appellant, an appeal was filed before ITAT with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No.2 & 3 of this Order. The same grounds were repeated by the Ld.AR of the appellant before the ITAT also and requested the Bench to take a lenient view because the appellant is a woman, who is not aware of complex legal provisions of income tax. The appellant has relied on the advice of the tax consultant and the moment, the tax consultant advised her to file an appeal, necessary steps were taken to file an appeal before ITAT. It was also mentioned by the Ld.AR of the appellant that the assessment order and the concerned notices were not received by her and the same were sent to the mail ID of the tax consultant and hence, she is not aware of the same.

6.

The Ld.DR opposed the admission of the case and relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

7.

After hearing both sides, the Bench decided to condone the delay of 84 days in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld.AR of the appellant. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal, 305 Taxman 83 (SC) held that the courts should adopt justice oriented and liberal approach while condoning the procedural delays rather than dismissing them on technical ground and in this case Hon’ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 166 days. Respectfully, following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is condoned. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass the order on merits after giving an effective opportunity to the appellant. The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.423/Viz/2026, A.Y.2015-16

8.

In the above captioned appeal, the assessee did not file income tax return for the A.Y.2015-16 and hence notice u/s 148 was issued by the Ld.AO after recording reasons that the assessee has made investment in Surya Sree Cashew Products, which deals in purchase and sale of cashew nuts, which is a family concern of the assessee. As per the information available to the Revenue, the assessee made substantial cash deposits of Rs.4.16 crores in various bank accounts held by her. In the reasons recorded, the Ld.AO has also mentioned that the appellant made cash transactions of above Rs.10 lakhs in a month to an extent of Rs.19.7 lakhs and she is a non filer for the relevant financial year. After recording the reasons as above, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, six notices were issued to the appellant calling for the information requiring the appellant to furnish the sources of cash deposits in her bank account. Since there was no response from the assessee, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the same was added while completing the assessment.

9.

Aggrieved by the assessment order making huge addition, an appeal was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) issued notices for hearing on 03.11.2023, 23.01.2024, 19.02.2024, fixing the case for 17.11.2023, 30.01.2024, 27.03.2024 respectively. The appeal notices were issued on the email address provided in Form 35 by the appellant. Since the appellant has not filed any explanation with regard to the grounds of appeal taken by her, did not explain the sources of cash deposited in her bank account and did not respond to the appeal notices sent by the Ld.CIT(A) and consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

10.

As the appellant did not get relief, an appeal was filed against the order of Ld.CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act before ITAT. The appellant has challenged the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act as bad in law and void-ab-initio and hence liable to be quashed. Another ground taken by the appellant before ITAT is that the Ld.CIT(A) controverted the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act as there was no adjudication on the merits of the case. The grounds of appeal taken by the appellant before ITAT are reproduced below for the sake of clarity.

1.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 dt.25-03-2022 and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 250 dt. 01.04.2024, are bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

3.

The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) Is in contravention of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, as It does not contain a speaking order with findings on the merits of the case. The absence of reasoned adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee renders the appellate order invalid and liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,16,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained bank deposits, without properly appreciating the source of such deposits. The addition sustained is contrary to facts and law, and therefore, deserves to be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, is legally untenable. The impugned addition is, therefore, unjustified and liable to be deleted. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) are unjustified, and contrary to the provisions of the IT Act, 1961. It is therefore prayed that the assessment and appellate orders be quashed and the additions made therein be deleted in the interest of justice and equity. 11. The appeal was filed before ITAT on 23.07.2025 and the first appellate authority has passed order on 01.04.2024. Thus, there is a delay of 368 days in filing of appeal before ITAT and hence the assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before ITAT, mainly on medical grounds. The Ld.AR of the appellant has filed certain medical certificates given by the assessee. One of the medical certificates states that the appellant is suffering with low back ache and was advised to undergo physiotherapy and rest for 3 months. Another medical certificate says that the appellant is suffering from hypertension, dengue fever and jaundice and hence, the appellant was advised to take bed rest for a period of 3 months. Similarly there are other medical certificates stating that the appellant is suffering from sciatica and was advised to take rest for 6 weeks. In view of the continuous illness, the appellant could not file the appeal before ITAT within the time limits. The Ld.AR of the appellant has pleaded that a lenient view may be taken and the delay may be condoned and admit the appeal to adjudicate the issue on merits.

12.

The Ld.DR has vehemently opposed the reasons mentioned for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.DR has pointed out several inconsistencies in the medical certificates furnished by the appellant. There were certain interpolations and over writings in the medical certificates given by the doctors and hence the same are not reliable. The Ld.DR filed written submissions in this regard and the same are reproduced for the sake of clarity.

“The assessee filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT on 03.07.2025, whereas the order of the CIT(A) was passed on 01.04.2024. The assessee was required to file appeal against the CIT(A)'s order on or before 30.06.2024, but the same was filed only on 03.07.2025, resulting in a delay of 368 days.

In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining reasons for the delay in filing, mainly on medical grounds. The medical certificates produced by the assessee have been examined in detail as under: 1) Medical Certificate - No. 486 dated 18.08.2025 As per the medical certificate, the assessee was unwell from 23.06.2024 to 04.08.2024 and was declared fit to resume duties from 05.08.2024. However, the assessee had almost 90 days to file the appeal before the ITAT, since the notice was issued on 01.04.2024 and, as per the latest amendment, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 30.06.2024. The assessee became ill only from 23.06.2024, by which time a substantial period for filing the appeal had already elapsed. Despite being fit prior to 23.06.2024, the assessee did not file the appeal within the prescribed time. In view of the above, the illness cannot be considered a valid excuse for the delay in filing the appeal. 2) Medical Certificate - No. 487 dated 18.08.2025 In this certificate, the doctor stated that the assessee again slipped in the washroom and the earlier injury was aggravated. The doctor advised her to take rest for 6 weeks more from 19.08. 2024 to 30.09.2024. and mentioned that she could resume duties from 01.10.2024.From the above it is evident that the assessee is fit to file appeal during the period from 05.08.2024 to 18.08.2025, however she failed to do so. 3) Medical Certificate - dated 18.08.2025 (from another doctor) The assessee has further submitted another certificate from a different doctor, stating that she required rest for 3 months from 04.10.2024 to 28.12.2024. 4) Medical Certificate - dated 18.08.2025(from another doctor) The assessee this time has submitted another certificate from a different doctor, stating that she was suffering from dengue fever and advised bed rest from 28.12.2024 to 24.02.2025. The doctor declared that the assessee was fit for duties from 25.02.2025. It is evident that the assessee is fit to file appeal during the period from 25.02.2025 to 02.07.2025; however she failed to do so. Observations and Findings On examining all the above medical certificates, the following discrepancies are noticed: 1. The dates appear interpolated and the receipts are sequential, despite covering different illness periods. All certificates were issued on the same date (18.08.2025) or much after the period of illness claimed. This clearly raises suspicion regarding the genuineness and timing of issuance of these certificates. 2. The assessee had several clear opportunities to file the appeal, including the periods from 02.04.2024 to 22.06.2024 (82 days) (i.e., the period after the notice had been served and before the assessee had fallen from stairs), 05.08.2024 to 18.08.2024 (14 days), 01.10.2024 to 03.10.2024 (4 days), and after 25.02.2025 to 02.07.2025 (127 days), but failed to do so. Also the delay of over Three Months after recovery (i.e. 24.02.2025) till 03.07.2025 remains unexplained. From the above, it is evident that the medical certificates are not genuine and appear to be fabricated and produced only to justify the delay. 3. The assessee is required to explain the "sufficient cause" for the delay and demonstrate that she was genuinely prevented by such sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. It is a settled legal principle that the assessee must satisfactorily explain the delay for the entire period, and, where necessary, on a day-to-day basis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector. Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that while considering a request for condonation of delay, the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. However, the burden still lies on the appellant to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control. Similarly, in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (1962) AIR 361 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the party seeking condonation must explain the delay for the entire period and show bona fide reasons preventing timely filing. In view of these principles, the assessee must furnish a proper and convincing explanation for the delay, covering the entire period, failing which the delay cannot be condoned. Prayer of the Department:- The assessee's delay of 368 days in filing appeal before the Hon’ ble ITAT is not satisfactorily explained. As explained supra, the medical certificates are self-serving, inconsistent, and unreliable, containing apparent manipulations and interpolations. Also the assessee had several days where she was fit to file an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, but failed to do so. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly hold the reasons furnished by the assessee are not bona fide, and the alleged medical grounds do not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay may kindly be rejected, and the appeal be dismissed as time-barred.” 13. After pointing out the inconsistencies in the contents of the medical certificates filed by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(DR) has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst.Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC), where it was held that expression “sufficient cause” must receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, but still burden lies on the appellant to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control. It was further held that the parties seeking condonation must explain the delay for the entire period and show bonafide reasons preventing timely filing. The Ld.CIT(DR) further argued that the assessee’s delay of 368 days in filing the appeal before ITAT is not satisfactorily explained as mentioned above. The medical certificates filed by the appellant are only self-serving, inconsistent and unreliable, containing apparent manipulations and interpolations. As the assessee had several days where she was fit to file an appeal before ITAT, but still did not file the same, hence, the Ld.CIT(A) concluded by stating that the reasons furnished by the assessee are not bonafide and the alleged medical grounds do not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Ld.CIT(DR) concluded by arguing that the petition for condonation of delay may kindly be rejected and the appeal be dismissed as time barred.

14.

The Bench heard the arguments of both the parties. Bare perusal of medical certificates filed by the assessee show that there are certain over writings with regard to the dates on which the assessee was advised to take bed rest. There are certain intermittent periods, where the assessee was not having any illness and the assessee should have filed the appeal when she is physically capable of working. Moreover, the medical problems mentioned in the medical certificates are not very serious diseases so as to prevent the assessee to file the appeal in time, because the illness as per the medical certificates is due to sciatica, dengue fever, jaundice, low back pain etc. The Ld.AR of the appellant could not substantiate that there is “sufficient reason” for filing the appeal with the delay of more than one year and could not give any valid explanation for over writings, interpolations mentioned in the medical certificates filed by the assessee. From the orders of the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A), it is seen that huge cash deposits of more than Rs.4 crore were made in her bank account and did not file even the income tax return for the relevant financial year. The notices sent by the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A) were also not responded to. Hence, the assessee is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1 lakh for all the deficiencies and omissions to Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within one month of receipt of this order. The delay is condoned. With the above directions, the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits, after giving opportunity to the appellant. The appellant is directed not to seek further adjournments and cooperate with the Department.

15.

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose for the A.Y.2015-16 and 2016-17.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (रविश सूद) (ओम्कारेश्िर धिदारा) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (RAVISH SOOD) ऱेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER Visakhapatnam dated 29.05.2026. L.Rama/Sr.PS Copy to:

MS.NAGA RAMA SAI LAKSHMI TETALI, 1 1-365, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, PERA RAMACHANDRAPURAM – 533342

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, 2 DEEPTHI TOWERS, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA 3 THE PCIT, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAMBENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →