KOLAPARTHY VENKATA RAMESH KUMAR,NELLORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR, GUNTUR

ITA 464/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 August 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order. Since the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

During a search, the assessee admitted undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271AAB. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits of the penalty levied under Section 271AAB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB,Section 132(4),Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Pronounced: 31.08.2026

PER MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal is filed by the Assesseeagainst the order of the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3 [“Ld.PCIT(Appeals)”], Visakhapatnam vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-

1 Kolaparthy Venkata Ramesh Kumar 26/1086637103(1)dated 27.02.2026 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, arising out of penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271AAB of the Income T

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 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →