MADHUSUDHAN KUMAR LANKOTI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 702/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 October 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-cooperative at various stages, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 was set aside and the issue was remitted back. The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the condonation petition. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the appeal after providing a hearing and the assessee was directed to file the condonation petition and pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for the 28-day delay due to a medical emergency and condoned the delay. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing, with a direction to the assessee to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund for their lackadaisical approach. The ratio is that procedural delays, if sufficiently explained, should not preclude an assessee from getting a decision on merits, especially when the original assessment was ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Madhusudhan Kumar Lankoti, filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. For AY 2017-18, the assessment was reopened under Section 148 due to flagged information on the Insight Portal regarding financial transactions, including cash deposits. The assessee did not respond to the notice or subsequent Section 142(1) notices, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144, determining total income at Rs. 2,10,31,000/- with additions under Sections 69, 69A & 69C. The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 97-day delay without a condonation petition. For AY 2018-19, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal in limine due to a 28-day delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 in limine due to a 97-day delay in filing, without considering the reasons for the delay, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee could not file the condonation petition due to reasons beyond their control and sought one more opportunity to submit it, requesting the matter be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to explain the delay by filing a relevant petition and therefore should not be given another opportunity; the appeal should be dismissed. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 in limine due to a 28-day delay in filing, without considering the reasons for the delay, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee filed a petition explaining the reasons for the delay, citing a medical emergency, and argued that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal decided on merits. Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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:

Thess appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “the Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.10.2025, for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19. ITA Nos.701 & 702/VIZ/2025 Madhusudhan Kumar Lankoti AY 2017-18:

2.

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →