KURUVA JAGADISH,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL

ITA 838/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal without affording an opportunity to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided reasons of ill-health and financial hardship in Form-35. In the interest of justice, the CIT(A) ought to have provided an opportunity for the assessee to prove these claims, rather than dismissing the appeal solely on limitation. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, emphasizing a justice-oriented and liberal approach to condonation of delay applications. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding the delay. If the CIT(A) condones the delay, he is to proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving that to the CIT(A) to decide.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kuruva Jagadish, is appealing an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dated 04/03/2026, which upheld an order by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 04/03/2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The AO initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding substantial financial transactions by the assessee, including cash and time deposits totaling over Rs. 67 lakhs, and the non-filing of the return of income. The AO determined the assessee's income at Rs. 11,34,668/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, due to unexplained credit entries in the assessee's bank account. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 585 days in filing, which the CIT(A) refused to condone.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground of limitation, without affording the assessee an opportunity to substantiate his reasons for the delay, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee argued that the CIT(A) arbitrarily rejected the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had cited ill-health and financial hardship as reasons. The AR contended that the CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate these claims with documentary evidence before summarily dismissing the appeal. The AR relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 83 (SC) for a justice-oriented and liberal approach in condoning delays. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri B Laxmi Kanth, Sr-AR

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 04/03/2026, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B

ITA 838/HYD/2026 KURUVA JAGADISH

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (f

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 →