VAMSHI SUNCHU,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2011/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 June 2026AY 2018-1922 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons provided were considered vague, general, and lacking bonafides, indicating negligence on the part of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vamshi Sunchu, did not file his income tax return. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings and passed an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 513 days.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's conduct during assessment proceedings and the sufficiency of the cause shown for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 139(1),Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. : This appeal is by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 27.10.2025 of Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

2.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) “The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in rejecting the petition for condonation of delay and in dismissing the appeal in limini without considering the facts. 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have decided the various grounds raised before him. 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that determination of income at Rs.5,93,32,084/- by the Assessing Officer is unjust and should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have decided the following grounds raised before him.

a) The order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous both on facts and in law. b) The order of assessment is invalid as the notice u/s 148A(b), the order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 were issued by an authority who has no jurisdiction. c) The Assessing Officer is not justified in completing the assessment without serving the notices physically on the appellant. d) The Assessing Officer erred in holding that the deposits made into the bank account amounted to Rs.3,07,85,590/- and further erred in treating the same as the income assessable u/s 69A of the I.T Act. e) The Assessing Officer erred in holding that the amount mentioned in Form 26AS i.e. the purchase of liquor of Rs.2,85,46,494/- is without source and further erred in treating the same as the income assessable u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. f) The Assessing Officer erred in determining the total income at Rs.5,93,32,084/- g) The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/sec.234A, u/sec.234B and u/sec.234C of the I.T. Act. h) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 6) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny through ITBA under the Head NMS on account of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.2,96,83,590/-, cash withdrawal of Rs.8 lakhs and also transactions in respect of sec.206C [purchase of alcoholic liquor]. In view of the above, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“JAO”] had passed an order u/sec.148A(d) after affording due opportunities to the assessee by taking approval from the Competent Authority to issue notice u/sec.148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer accordingly passed order u/sec.148A(d) as well as notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 25.04.2022. The assessee had not filed his return of income either u/sec.139(1) of the Act or in response to notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act. Despite the statutory notices issued u/sec.142(1) of the Act, show cause notice u/sec.144 of the Act as well as notice u/sec.148 of the Act the assessee failed to furnish any submissions to substantiate his case. In absence of any supporting evidence filed by the assessee and after obtaining the information from the Bank, the Assessing Officer has assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,93,32,084/- by making variation of additions u/sec.69A of the Act at Rs.3,07,85,590/- and Rs.2,85,46,494/- u/sec.69C of the Act against NIL return filed by the assessee vide Order dated 03.10.2023 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 513 days. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that the contention of the assessee that he is not aware of passing of the impugned order till March, 2025 is factually incorrect and totally inconsistent with the details available on record which unambiguously point out that the assessee has filed his ITR for the assessment year 2024-2025 much earlier i.e., on 31.07.2024 and not around March, 2025. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) after considering the various judicial precedents on the issue and in view of stark contradictions and unambiguous inconsistencies and non-coherence in the reasons mentioned by the assessee, declined to condone the delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before him and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 5. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee now, carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Sri S Rama Rao, learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that the assessee carried on the business in trading of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. As he suffered loss in the business activity and therefore, he did not file the return of income u/sec.139(1) of the Act. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal based on the deposits in the bank account initiated proceedings u/sec.148 of the Act and passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 03.10.2023 u/sec.144 of the Act and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.5,93,32,084/-. The assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, on 29.03.2025 with a delay of 513 days. He submitted that the assessee was granted license for running wine shop for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.10.2015 till 30.09.2017. On expiry of the license, the business was closed and the assessee has taken-up private employment. He submitted that the assessment proceedings are initiated during the year 2022 long after the closure of the business of the assessee and that the notices stated to have been issued by the Assessing Officer are not in the knowledge of the assessee. Further, the order of assessment was not known to the assessee till the middle of 2024 when he sought to file his salary return of income for the assessment year 2024-2025. He submitted that since the email of the assessee was oversubscribed during the relevant period of assessment proceedings, no emails were received and as such, the assessment order was completed ex-parte. Further, the assessee’s father Sri Sunchu Koteswer who was looking after the entire business activity and connected matters passed away on 23.07.2023 after prolonged illness and medical treatment. Therefore, there was no person to keep track of the matters relating to the business activity which was closed down in the year 2017 itself. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that the order of assessment has come to the knowledge of the appellant when his Income Tax Practitioner was verifying the Income Tax Portal for the assessment year 2024-2025 during the month of March, 2025 and the assessee was perturbed by the huge demand disproportionate to the business activity. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that initially the assessee consulted local Chartered Accountant at Warangal for preparing and filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and after consulting and as per the advice the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 29.03.2025 with a delay of 513 days. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay is on account of the reasons submitted above which are beyond the control of the assessee and further, the assessee does not stand to benefit by filing the appeal with delay. Accordingly, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pleaded that the delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi may please be condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The learned DR on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of the delay. He submitted that the contentions of the assessee are totally incorrect and stark contradictions, inconsistencies which are emanated from the record as noted by the learned CIT(A) in its order. He therefore, submitted that the delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should not be condoned and submitted that the Order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld as the assessee was failed to made out reasonable sufficient cause for condonation of in ordinate delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). He has relied upon the Order of the learned CIT(A).

8.

We have considered the rival submissions and considered relevant reasons given for condonation of delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). We find that, reasons explained by the assessee in it’s affidavit for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed date, are vague and general in nature and the assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ for condonation of delay. We further observe that, during the course of assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee could not substantiate his case by producing necessary documentary evidence as called for. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition which has been sustained by the learned CIT(A). This shows the negligent attitude of the assessee in prosecuting his case before the lower authorities. Further, the reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the time, are vague and general in nature which shows the lackadaisical approach of the assessee in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Further, the assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ which are beyond the control of the assessee that are prevented in not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed period.

8.1. Further, the argument of the appellant that, appeal could not be filed due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, is not convincing to us going by the conduct of the assessee and facts present before the Tribunal. No doubt, it is an admitted legal position of law from the decision of various Courts including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST. Katiji & Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) that, generally, the Courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, in order to condone the delay, to enable the Courts to do substantial justice and apply law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice. The Courts further noted that, in adhering the liberal approach in condoning the delay for ‘sufficient cause’ ordinary litigant does not stand benefit by lodging an appeal late and it is not necessary to explain every day’s delay in filing the appeal and since, sometimes refused to condone the delay, result in thrown out a meritorious matter. Therefore, it is, in the interest of justice that, cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical consideration and if the delay is not deliberate, it should be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power of the Court to condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter-of-fact dead matter to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it must always be borne in mind that, while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding an appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal, substantive right in favour of the appellant accrues and this right should not be lightly disturbed.

8.2. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" i.e., it is for the general welfare that, the period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to, put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Every public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation, otherwise, it would be a dichotomy, if the litigant is made immortal vis-a-vis the right in parties i.e., human beings were mortals. Therefore, considering the importance of time, limitations provided under the statutes must be understood in this context. The Income Tax Act, 1961 provided for limitation for filing appeals before various authorities including the Tribunal. Further, the Act has also provided a discretionary power to the Authorities for condoning the delay, if ‘sufficient cause’ is made out with reasonable explanation. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the Authorities must keep in mind the importance of limitation provided under the statutes and the discretionary power conferred by the said statute keeping in mind the phrase ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’.

8.3. In the present case, going by the affidavit filed by the assessee for explaining the reasons, the assessee claims that, it could not file the appeal since the assessee was not having the knowledge of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer till March, 2025 which is factually incorrect and totally inconsistent with the details available on record that the assessee has filed his ITR for the assessment year 2024-2025 on 31.07.2024. The other contention of the assessee that his father passed away and that he has consulted his local Chartered Accountant at Warangal for filing of appeal and later on he consulted an Advocate at Hyderabad and filed the present appeal before the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi and in the process there is a delay of 513 days are not convincing and the said reasons given by the assessee are vague and general in nature, without any substance and failed to take timely steps to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and, therefore, the argument of the assessee that due to the above reasons, the appeal before the learned CIT(A) could not be filed within the time, is not acceptable as there is gross negligence on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee for the delay and after noting the relevant stark contradictions and unambiguous inconsistencies and non-coherence in the reasons mentioned by the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Further, in our considered view, the ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is, a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligent or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee, the appeal before the learned CIT(A) could not be filed within the time allowed under the Act and this fact is further strengthened by the conduct of the assessee before the authorities below where the assessee did not appeared before the learned CIT(A) when the case was listed for hearing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filling of the appeal, does not come under ‘sufficient cause’ and for this reason, the delay of 513 days in filing appeal before the learned CIT(A) cannot be condoned.

8.4. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 vide order dated 08.04.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of sec.3(1) Secs.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and uphold the order of the Hon’ble High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court in dismissing the appeal on account of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP, after considering the various judicial precedents on the subject matter of condonation of delay, noted that, “where a litigant could not explain the ‘sufficient cause’ which means adequate, enough reasons which prevented him to approach the Court within the period of limitation and could not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained the delay to the Court/Tribunal, Court’s has no power to condone such delays”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that, “the statutory provisions under Limitation Act may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party, but, the Court has no choice, but, to enforce it giving full effect to the same by quoting the legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted when there were negligence/failure to exercise due diligence etc., and accordingly dismissed the SLP of the appellants in the aforesaid case”.

8.5. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court yet in an another case Balwant Singh (Dead) vs., Jagdish Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.1166/2006 reported in [2010] 8 SCC 685 in para-16 very clearly held as under : “16. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Court under these provisions. The explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications.”

8.6. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee did not file his return of income for the year under consideration and also despite various notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not bother to respond to any of the notices with supporting evidence to substantiate his case. In absence of supporting documentary evidences, the Assessing Officer has assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,93,32,084/- vide ex-parte Order dated 03.10.2023. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal with a delay of 513 days and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine in view of incorrect facts and inconsistencies as evident from the record. Therefore, in our considered view, once the assessee has shown negligence in filing appeal before the learned CIT(A), the reasons given in his affidavit at best can be considered as vague and general, but not ‘sufficient cause’. From the conduct of the assessee right from the stage of assessment proceedings and filing of appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has shown negligence. Therefore, from the above conduct of the assessee, it appears that, the reasons given for delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is not bonafide. As we have already stated in earlier part of this order that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs., Jagdish Singh & Ors. (supra), has clearly held that, Court must also take into account conduct of the parties, bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, whether such day could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the appellant could have avoided the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A), had it been shown little care and caution in the income tax matters. Since the appellant has shown casual approach and negligence in pursuing his case before the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the reasons given by the appellant for condonation of inordinate delay of 513 days in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) cannot be condoned for the said reasons.

8.7. Further, u/sec.253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such powers can be exercised only upon showing of ‘sufficient cause’ preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. In the present case, the delay involved is 513 days which is highly inordinate. The reasons adduced by the assessee are general in nature and did not inspire the confidence. The explanation lacks specific dates, supporting evidences or cogent material to demonstrate bonafides. It is well settled law by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court yet in another decision in the case of O/o. Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs., Living Media India Ltd., & Anr. [2012] 348 ITR 7 (SC) that, Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its rigor and liberal approach cannot be extended to cases of gross negligence or inaction.

8.8. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that, the assessee has failed to explain delay and the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed period with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’. Therefore, by respectfully following the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) (supra); Balwant Singh (Dead) vs., Jagdish Singh & Ors. (supra) and O/o. Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs., Living Media India Ltd., & Anr. (supra), we are disinclined to condone the delay of 513 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as un-admitted.

9.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- VIJAY PAL RAO MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 17th day of June, 2026 VBP Copy to: VAMSHI SUNCHU, 1-60, MACHAPOOR VILLAGE, 1 GEESUGONDA MANDAL, WARANGAL-508002, TELANGANA 2 ITO, WARD-1, WARD-1, WARANGAL-, TELANGANA 3 THE Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, A-Bench, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.06.17 RAO I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD 14:33:09 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →