SUGURU ANJANAIAH,GUNTAKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, GUNTAKAL

ITA 2336/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2015-1614 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay, encompassing his advanced age, medical difficulties (supported by documents), dependence on pension income, limited familiarity with electronic tax procedures, and unawareness of the assessment proceedings until contacted by the JAO, constituted sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal and justice-oriented approach, citing Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. Income Tax Officer, which advocate for advancing substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order, restored the matter to his file, and directed him to condone the delay and adjudicate the grounds on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Suguru Anjanaiah, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dated 07.04.2026, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 16.12.2023. The AO had initiated reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 based on information from the CBDT's Insight portal regarding undisclosed interest income and time deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 680 days in filing, without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The assessee contended that the delay was due to his advanced age (71 years), medical complications, limited familiarity with online procedures, and lack of access to his registered email, leading to unawareness of the assessment proceedings until contacted by the AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine on the ground of limitation, without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits, contrary to the principles of natural justice and established judicial precedents (Section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961). - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) adopted a rigid and hyper-technical approach in interpreting Section 249(3), failing to consider the assessee's age, medical condition, and lack of technical familiarity as sufficient cause for the delay. Reliance was placed on precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technical delays, citing cases like Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. Income Tax Officer. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice under Section 148 dated 07.04.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 were barred by limitation under Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Assessee's contention: The notice was issued beyond the statutory six-year limit expired on 31.03.2022, and the first proviso to Section 149(1) prevents issuance under the new regime if time-barred under the old. Reliance was placed on ITAT Hyderabad Bench's decision in Veera Hanuman Filling Station v. ITO. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, contrary to Section 144B and the Faceless Reassessment Scheme. - Assessee's contention: The reassessment proceedings are bad in law due to the issuance of the notice by the JAO, violating mandatory provisions. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(3),Section 148,Section 149,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

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

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Hyderabad (for short, “CIT(Appeals)”), dated 07.04.2026, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”),

ITA 2336/HYD/2026 SUGURU ANJANAIA

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →