JANAKIRAM DAMMALAPATI,BHADRACHALAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM

ITA 1732/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 September 2026AY 2018-20196 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding chronic piles requiring surgery and acute back pain necessitating bed rest constituted a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not demonstrated any deliberate or intentional delay. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT, the Tribunal emphasized adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach in condoning delays. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits due to dismissing the appeal on limitation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Janakiram Dammalapati, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC, Delhi) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was against an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The assessee is aggrieved by this order and has filed the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19 should be condoned, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The delay was due to the assessee suffering from chronic and acute piles requiring surgery, and acute back pain necessitating bed rest. These medical conditions were beyond the assessee's control and not deliberate. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay and for the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), objecting to the condonation of delay. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period, and therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 17/09/2026

Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M:.

This appeal is filed by Shri Janakiram Dammalapati (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16.03.2026 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an i

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 →