BABU GUNDLAPALLE,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR

ITA 2093/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2016-1710 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 867 days in filing the appeal, finding that the explanation provided by the assessee, including his status as a government teacher, frequent transfers, lack of familiarity with online proceedings, and reliance on professional advice, cumulatively indicated that the delay was not deliberate. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's contention that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) under section 249(4)(b) was unsustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that section 249(4)(b) requires payment of advance tax payable, and in this case, after considering the salary income of Rs. 5,10,420/- and the TDS of Rs. 27,897/-, no advance tax was payable by the assessee. The Tribunal further noted the substantial discrepancy in the salary income determined by the AO (Rs. 55,77,032/-) versus the assessee's claim (Rs. 5,10,420/-) and the ex-parte nature of the assessment. To serve the interests of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as a cost for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Babu Gundlapalle, a government teacher, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2016-17. There was a significant delay of 867 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the delay due to frequent transfers, unfamiliarity with online proceedings, and reliance on incorrect professional advice, which led to pursuing a revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before withdrawing it to file the present appeal. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined the salary income at Rs. 55,77,032/- against the assessee's claimed salary of Rs. 5,10,420/-, as reflected in Form 26AS. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 867 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the circumstances surrounding it (Question of fact and law). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly when the assessee contended that no advance tax was payable given the TDS already deducted on his actual salary income (Question of law). 3. Whether the assessment order, which determined the salary income at Rs. 55,77,032/- against the assessee's claimed income of Rs. 5,10,420/-, requires examination on merits, especially considering it was an ex-parte assessment (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not intentional. He contended that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal under section 249(4)(b) as no advance tax was payable after considering the TDS. The assessee also highlighted the substantial discrepancy in the salary income determined by the AO and urged for an examination of the assessment on merits, suggesting restoration to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee relied on the information in Form 26AS and the TDS of Rs. 27,897/-. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of the delay, citing the substantial period and the assessee's failure to respond during assessment proceedings. The revenue also submitted that the issue required factual examination by the AO and did not object to restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(4)(b),Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 17/09/2026

Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Babu Gundlapalle (“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 22.11.2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 867 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an ITA No 2093 of 2026 Babu Gundlapalle

affidavit explai

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 →