VINAY RAGHAV MAGUNTA,NELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, NELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 242/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 May 2026AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the four-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to illness constituted a 'sufficient cause'. Therefore, the delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file his return of income for AY 2020-21 within the due date. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed the return belatedly, citing health issues and consultant oversight. The Assessing Officer accepted the returned income but initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for under-reporting.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illness constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद “एस एम सी” बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य HON’BLE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.242/Hyd/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vinay Raghav Magunta, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, R/o.Nellore. Ward-(1), Nellore. PAN : BCEPM2761H (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. for Assessee Shri M. Rahim, Retired I.R.S. Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. A.R. Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 07.05.2026 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 18.12.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21.

2 ITA No.242/Hyd/2026 Vinay Raghav Magunta

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, assessee, who is an individual, did not file his return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2020-21. On the basis of information available with the department, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee had received salary income from M/s. NUNC Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. aggregating to Rs.26,68,377/-. Since the assessee did not file return of income, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 26.03.2024 was issued calling upon the assessee to furnish return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed return of income on 08.04.2024 in response to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs.21,71,480/-. The assessee further submitted that, due to oversight of his consultant and health issues faced by him during Covid-19 pandemic period, he could not file return of income within the prescribed time under Section 139(1) of the Act.

3.

The A.O., after considering the explanations and details furnished by the assessee, accepted the returned income and completed assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on

3 ITA No.242/Hyd/2026 Vinay Raghav Magunta

21.01.2025 determining total income at Rs.21,71,780/-. However, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act, for under reporting of income on the ground that, the assessee failed to file return of income within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved by the penalty order passed under Section 270A of the Act, dated 22.07.2025, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, delay in filing of appeal was due to ill health, pandemic related constraints and because, the assessee was residing in USA for the past four months. The assessee further submitted that, the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, was accepted without any variation and therefore, there is no under reporting of income warranting levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the reasons given by the A.O. to levy penalty under Section 270A of the Act, for under reporting of income, observed that, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary

4 ITA No.242/Hyd/2026 Vinay Raghav Magunta

evidences in support of reasons explained for delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, ignorance of law, pandemic related constraints and residence in USA cannot constitute “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, the assessee has failed to explain each day’s delay with supporting evidences and therefore, no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay of 4 days in filing of appeal. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’.

6.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A. for Shri M. Rahim, Retired I.R.S., submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’ without properly appreciating the reasons explained for delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that’ the delay of four days in filing of appeal was neither wilful nor intentional, but due to illness and circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that, the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)

5 ITA No.242/Hyd/2026 Vinay Raghav Magunta

may be condoned and the issue may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

7.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Ms. Aditi Goyal, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidences to substantiate the reasons explained for delay in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the facts available on record, has rightly rejected the condonation petition filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’. Therefore, she submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

8.

I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, there is a delay of four days in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted on account of delay of four days in filing of appeal on the ground that, the reasons explained by the assessee do not come under “sufficient cause” and the assessee has failed to explain reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on or before the due date.

6 ITA No.242/Hyd/2026 Vinay Raghav Magunta

It was the explanation of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that due to his illness, he could not file the appeal on or before the due date and the delay of 4 days in filing of appeal is neither intentional nor for want of any undue benefit. In my considered view, although the assessee needs to explain each and every day of delay with sufficient cause, but going by the reasons given by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that due to his illness, he could not file the appeal within the time, appears to be reasonable and bona fide and comes under “sufficient cause”, as provided under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 4 days in filing of appeal for advancement of substantial justice because no litigant would get any benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in “limine”. Since the reasons given by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for the delay in filing of the appeal is bona fide and comes under “sufficient cause”, in my considered view, the four days delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned. Thus, I condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue involved in the appeal to the file

7 ITA No.242/Hyd/2026 Vinay Raghav Magunta

of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue in appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th May, 2026. Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 13.05.2026. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Vinay Raghav Magunta, R/o. B-102, Pavani Elite Apartments, Childrens Park Street, Balaji Nagar, Nellore – 524002. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 4. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file 5. आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER TIRUPATI YAMINI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI NAGA Date: 2026.05.14 11:03:14 MALLESWARI +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →