MANDA NAGARJUNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 648/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 October 2026AY 2011-128 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal. It reasoned that there was no deliberate or willful attempt by the assessee to delay filing, and the delay was due to seeking counsel and collating documents, which were beyond the assessee's control. Citing *Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.*, the Tribunal emphasized that refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice, while condoning it allows for a decision on merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a non-filer, did not get an effective opportunity of hearing before the AO or the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte. Given the assessee's claim that the property belonged to a company and the willingness to produce evidence, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manda Nagarjuna, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated December 16, 2024, for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The appeal was filed with a delay of 242 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to seeking legal advice and collating documents. The Assessing Officer (AO) had reopened the assessment under Section 147 as the assessee, a non-filer, had purchased immovable property for Rs. 40,53,500/- on November 29, 2010, without declaring it or its source. The assessee initially stated income of Rs. 1,20,000/- below taxable limits. During assessment, the assessee claimed the property belonged to M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. The AO made an addition of Rs. 45,18,155/- under Section 69 as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for non-appearance and non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned, considering the reasons provided and the principles laid down in judicial precedents (mixed law and fact, relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and principles of natural justice). Assessee's contention: The delay was unintentional, caused by seeking legal advice and gathering documents, and not filing the appeal would cause hardship. Reliance was placed on *Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.* [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) and *Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank & Others* [2000] 9 SCC 733. Revenue's contention: The reasons provided by the assessee do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 45,18,155/- made by the AO under Section 69 as unexplained investment for the purchase of property is justified, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present evidence regarding the ownership and source of funds (mixed law and fact, relying on Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The property belongs to the company M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd., and the source of funds has been explained by the company. The assessee is willing to produce relevant documents obtained from the court. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but the Ld. Sr. AR agreed that the matter could be set aside to the AO for reconsideration as the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and no evidence was filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE

Hearing: 17.09.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “the Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.12.2024, for assessment year 2011-12. Manda Nagarjuna 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of ‘242’ days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which, the assess

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →