PHANINDHAR KUMAR MADALA,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2281/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be better served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. The delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, subject to the assessee depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund as costs. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to furnish proof of deposit to the AO, who was then directed to verify it and decide the appeal afresh. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Phanindhar Kumar Madala, an NRI, is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, dated June 11, 2026, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessment order under challenge was an ex-parte best judgment assessment passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 138 days. The assessee contended that he was unaware of the assessment proceedings as he was in the USA and had not been assessed to income tax previously. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for being barred by limitation, without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's status as an NRI and his alleged lack of awareness of the assessment proceedings? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, being an NRI and previously not assessed to tax, was unaware of the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. He became aware of the assessment order only later and promptly filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The delay occurred due to his absence in the USA. The assessee relied on the principle that interests of justice should be served by providing an opportunity to present his case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Respondent: Mr. K. Prasad, Sr.AR

PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, AM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT”] dated 11.06.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. ITA 2281/HYD/2026 PHANINDHAR KUMAR MADALA

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has

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 →