VENKATESH CHOWDARI YANTRAPRAGADA,CHIKKALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, TANUKU, TANUKU

ITA 728/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 October 2026AY 2019-2012 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach while considering the application for condonation of delay, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the matter deserved to be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The explanation regarding the inability of the regular tax consultant and the subsequent engagement of another professional warranted examination. The dismissal of the appeal solely on limitation without examining the grounds on merits would deprive the assessee of an opportunity for adjudication. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the grounds on merits. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition made by the AO under Section 69A.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Venkatesh Chowdari Yantrapraada, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 24.04.2026. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to delay. This dismissal stemmed from an assessment order dated 11.03.2024, passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about a Form No. 60 declaration filed by the assessee with Canara Bank, indicating agricultural income but no other taxable income. The assessee failed to respond to the notice under Section 148 and subsequent notices under Section 142(1). The AO, in best judgment, assessed the total income at Rs. 12,300/-, treating cash deposits of Rs. 12,32,000/- in the assessee's bank account as unexplained under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without appreciating the sufficient and reasonable cause shown by the assessee for condonation of delay, contrary to the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and condonation of delay). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had not provided appropriate reasons for the delay, ignoring the explanation that the delay arose from bona fide circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including the inability of the regular tax consultant to pursue the matter due to lack of expertise and the consequent engagement of a new professional? (Question of law and fact, concerning the sufficiency of cause for delay). Assessee's Contentions: - The delay was not willful or due to negligence but arose from bona fide circumstances, specifically the inability of the regular tax consultant to handle the matter due to lack of expertise, necessitating the engagement of a new professional. - The assessee, being from a rural background with limited knowledge of tax laws, had a reasonable cause for the delay. - The assessee acted diligently upon becoming aware of the assessment order and sought professional assistance. - Substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, especially when no mala fide intention is attributable to the assessee. - The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. - Relied on the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period and did not furnish any justifiable reason warranting condonation of delay. - The CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

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 (for short, “CIT(Appeals)”), dated 24.04.2026, 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 Incom

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 →