HARIJANA NAGARAJU,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL

ITA 1116/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 September 2026AY 2018-1910 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order and 130 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order before the CIT(A), subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's explanation that the incorrect SBI branch was contacted by the Assessing Officer, leading to non-communication of the notice and lack of awareness of the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the bank account was used for SBI clients of the Pattikonda branch, and without verifying this, assessing the entire transaction amount in the assessee's hands was unjustified. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering relevant records and the assessee's explanation. The penalty order was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officer to take appropriate steps post-remand proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harijana Nagaraju, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 1109 & 1116/HYD/2026) against orders of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. These orders pertained to an assessment completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and a penalty under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed in limine due to a delay of 324 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order and 130 days against the penalty order. The assessee is a business correspondent for SBI, Pattikonda Branch, and used a bank account for customer transactions, earning only commission income. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on deposits and withdrawals in this account, issuing a notice to the wrong SBI branch, leading to an ex-parte assessment order of Rs. 1,65,92,810/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 324 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order and 130 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation for non-appearance before the Assessing Officer and subsequent delay in filing appeals. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the merits of the case and dismissing the appeals solely on the basis of limitation. The delay was attributed to the Assessing Officer issuing notice to the incorrect SBI branch (Adoni instead of Pattikonda), resulting in the assessee's lack of awareness of the assessment proceedings and the ex-parte order. The assessee, a business correspondent for SBI, Pattikonda, used the bank account for customer transactions, earning only commission income of Rs. 85,302/-, making the addition of Rs. 1,65,07,500/- unjustified. Condoning the delay is crucial to prevent gross injustice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee failed to explain any reasonable or sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271AAC(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two separate Orders both dated 15.01.2026 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, arising out of the assessment completed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 as well as penalty u/sec.271AAC1 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, respectively, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. ITA.No.11

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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →