THOTI SANKARAIAH,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR

ITA 2094/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2016-178 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 563 days in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding notices being sent to a different email address constituted a reasonable explanation for the lack of knowledge of the appellate order. While acknowledging the substantial delay, the Tribunal considered the surrounding circumstances and the subsequent steps taken by the assessee upon receiving the recovery notice as indicators of no deliberate intention to delay. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's failure to exercise reasonable diligence in following up the appeal, but this did not outweigh the explanation regarding the email communication. The Tribunal then addressed the grounds of appeal concerning the reassessment. It was noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with the AO's notices and the subsequent failure to present the case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the email issue. The significant discrepancy between the salary income reflected in Form 26AS and the income adopted by the AO required factual verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish documents and explanations. The AO was directed to verify the actual salary income and TDS and determine the total income accordingly, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Thoti Sankaraiah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17. There was a delay of 563 days in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that notices and the appellate order were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to his unawareness of the proceedings. He became aware upon receiving a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prompting him to file the appeal. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay. The ITAT, after considering the submissions, decided to condone the delay, subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The appeal was then admitted for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 563 days in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of sufficient cause? Assessee's Contention: The delay was caused because notices and the appellate order from the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to an email address different from the one specified in Form No. 35. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings and the order. The assessee became aware only upon receiving a notice under Section 226(3) of the Act, dated 14.03.2026, and immediately took steps to file the appeal. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the substantial delay and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 55,77,032/- are sustainable, considering the discrepancy between Form 26AS and the assessed income, and the alleged non-service of notice under Section 148? Assessee's Contention: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reassessment and the addition of Rs. 55,77,032/-. The reassessment was initiated on incorrect facts, as Form 26AS reflected salary income of only Rs. 2,98,170/-. The notice under Section 148 was not duly served and was not digitally signed, making the proceedings void ab initio. The addition is factually incorrect and unsupported by evidence. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the Revenue regarding the merits of the reassessment proceedings at this stage, other than their opposition to the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 226(3)

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 Thoti Sankaraiah (“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 17.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 563 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an ITA No 2094 of 2026 Thoti Sankaraiah

affidavit explainin

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 →