VEDURE MAHENDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal, rejecting the petition for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. While the assessee claimed the email address was populated by default and he had not opted for email service, the Tribunal noted that the Form 35 did not indicate a clear 'No' to email service, and the same email address was used in duplicate appeals. Furthermore, the assessee had furnished submissions in the duplicate appeals, demonstrating participation in appellate proceedings, which contradicted the claim of being unaware of the disposal of the original appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the contention regarding the belief that the original appeal was pending due to duplicate appeals was raised orally for the first time and not supported by an affidavit, making it an afterthought. Citing Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously and delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without sufficient cause. The assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri Vedure Mahender Reddy, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, against the order of the Learned Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of over one year and nine months. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, attributing it to not receiving notices or the order from the CIT(A) because the email address on Form 35 was populated by default and he had not opted for email service. He claimed to have learned about the demand only in January 2026. He also contended that the inadvertent filing of three duplicate appeals led him to believe his original appeal was still pending.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of more than one year and nine months in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned on the grounds stated by the assessee? Assessee's Arguments: - The assessee argued that he had not opted for email service of notices or orders and the email address on Form 35 was populated by default. He claimed he was unaware of the CIT(A)'s order until January 2026. - He further contended that the inadvertent filing of three duplicate appeals against the same assessment order created a bona fide belief that his original appeal was still pending before the CIT(A), as he continued to receive notices and furnish submissions in those duplicate appeals. - The delay was submitted to be neither deliberate nor intentional, and therefore, should be condoned to allow adjudication on merits. Revenue's Arguments: - The Revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the substantial delay. - They prayed for the dismissal of the appeal as being barred by limitation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 5 (Limitation Act)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
Per Madhusudhan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Vedure Mahender Reddy (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) dated 25.06.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of more than one year and nine months in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the delay, along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the belated filing of the appeal. Th
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.
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.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
