MURUGAIAH ALTHURI,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR

ITA 2100/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2016-1710 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal, finding that the explanation provided by the assessee, including frequent transfers, reliance on professional assistance, and uncertainty regarding the appropriate remedy (revision vs. appeal), constituted sufficient cause. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay was substantial and the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings, but considered these cumulatively with the explanation. The Tribunal noted the significant discrepancy in salary income as a factor supporting adjudication on merits. To balance the delay and lack of diligence, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to verify the actual salary income and TDS, and to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Murugaiah Althuri, a government teacher, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 198 days. The assessee explained the delay by citing frequent transfers, unfamiliarity with online proceedings, and reliance on tax consultants. He had initially pursued a revision petition under section 264, which he later withdrew upon receiving different professional advice, and then filed the present appeal. The assessee's reported salary income was Rs. 6,45,261, while the Assessing Officer (AO) determined it at Rs. 55,77,032. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, citing the assessee's non-compliance during assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the arguments raised by the Revenue. This is a question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay was due to frequent transfers, lack of familiarity with online proceedings, and reliance on professional advice. - He pursued a revision petition under section 264 under mistaken advice, which led to the delay in filing the appeal. - The substantial difference between actual salary income (Rs. 6,45,261) and assessed income (Rs. 55,77,032) warrants examination on merits. - The delay was not deliberate or intentional. Revenue's Contentions: - The delay of 198 days is inordinate and not warranted by a liberal approach. - The assessee failed to respond during assessment proceedings, indicating a lack of diligence. - The appeal should be dismissed as barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B

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 Murugaiah Althuri (“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 30.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 198 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned

Page

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 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →