AMUDALA VEERANNA,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, ADONI

ITA 1132/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 October 2026AY 2018-1932 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 55 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act on 01.04.2022 was invalid and void because it was issued without obtaining prior approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in ACIT (International Taxation) vs. LinkedIn Singapore Pte Ltd. and the Telangana High Court in Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention based on Section 292BC, stating that it does not cure defects relating to the competence of the authority granting approval. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B was also held to be unsustainable and liable to be quashed. As the reassessment order was set aside, the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices during the assessment proceedings was also deleted. The Tribunal noted that other grounds raised by the assessee became infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amudala Veeranna, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 1132 & 1133/HYD/2026) against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The first appeal challenged an assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the second challenged a penalty order under Section 272A(1)(d). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine due to a delay of 55 days in filing. The assessee claimed to be a business correspondent/sub-agent for SBI, and the credits in bank accounts related to SBI's clients, not his undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 1,66,63,595/- based on total bank credits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed before the CIT(A) were barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay of 55 days should be condoned. 2. Whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 01.04.2022, was valid, considering it was issued after three years from the end of the assessment year and allegedly without proper approval under Section 151(ii). 3. Whether the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) was sustainable if the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Assessee's Arguments: - The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee coming to know about the assessment order only upon receipt of a notice under Section 271AAC(1). - The bank transactions were related to SBI's clients, and the assessee earned only commission income. - The notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued after three years and without the approval of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required by Section 151(ii), relying on ITAT Hyderabad, Telangana High Court, and Supreme Court judgments. - The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not sustainable as the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Revenue's Arguments: - The assessee failed to explain the cause of delay, and thus the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeals in limine. - The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued within the limitation period of three years, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 was a continuation of valid proceedings. - Section 292BC of the Act, inserted retrospectively, cured any defects in approvals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 148,Section 151,Section 148A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 142(1),Section 292BC,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate Orders dated 10.01.2026 and 31.01.2026 of the learned CIT(A) arising from assessment order passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 and penalty order passed u/sec.272A(1)(d) of 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.

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 →