JNTUA OIL TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE,ANANTHAPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD, TIRUPATI

ITA 2442/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 October 2026AY 2018-1917 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the 124-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons provided, such as time taken to collect data and non-availability of persons in charge due to personal reasons, were considered vague and unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that even before the Tribunal, the assessee's counsel did not explain the cause of delay despite repeated queries. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as time-barred. Since the quantum appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground, the Tribunal also dismissed the consequential penalty appeal, stating that the penalty was levied as a consequence of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the addition or the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, JNTUA Oil Technological Research Institu, filed appeals before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, against orders of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeals challenged the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a penalty order under Section 270A. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order as time-barred, declining to condone a delay of 124 days. The assessee's grounds before the Tribunal focused on the merits of the addition and the CIT(A)'s failure to adjudicate legal issues. The penalty appeal was consequential to the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone a delay of 124 days, and thereby denying adjudication on the merits of the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating the legal issues raised by the assessee amounts to a denial of substantive justice? 3. Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is void in law, given the alleged infirmities in the assessment order and the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous due to multiple legal and jurisdictional infirmities, rendering the assessment order void. It contended that filing a return under Section 139(4C) is not a prerequisite for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), and the denial of exemption and consequential addition of Rs. 94,85,336/- were unsustainable. The assessee also argued that the rejection of condonation of delay amounted to a denial of substantive justice. For the penalty appeal, it argued that the penalty was void as the underlying assessment order was flawed and that the penalty appeal should be kept in abeyance pending the quantum appeal. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not file a specific reply, but the CIT(A)'s order, as reflected in the Tribunal's discussion, indicated that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were vague and insufficient. The CIT(A) found the assessee had not acted diligently.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 274,Section 139,Section 250,Section 246A,Section 253,Section 275

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against two separate Orders dated 30.10.2025 and 31.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, arising from assessment order passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 and penalty Order passed u/

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 →