KAPA SRINIVAS REDDY,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL

ITA 356/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 October 2026AY 2015-1637 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal was condoned as there was a sufficient and reasonable cause due to the assessee's medical condition, supported by medical certificates and prescriptions. The Tribunal also admitted the additional ground of appeal, finding it to be purely legal and adjudicable on the existing record, following the precedent in CIT vs. NTPC. On the core issue of limitation, the Tribunal, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Cyberabad Citizens Health Services Private Limited vs. DCIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Sai Kumar Mateti, held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 03.04.2022 (and other similar dates mentioned in the judgment) was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court in Sai Kumar Mateti had confirmed that for Assessment Year 2015-16, notices issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed as being bad in law. Other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kapa Srinivas Reddy, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-2016. There was a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. The assessee's counsel explained the delay was due to the assessee suffering from typhoid fever and being under medical treatment and bed rest. The Revenue did not strongly object to the condonation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The assessee raised grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, including issues of jurisdiction and limitation. An additional ground regarding the reassessment being barred by limitation and without jurisdiction was also admitted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is liable to be admitted for hearing and adjudication on merits, considering the delay of 35 days in filing. 2. Whether the additional ground of appeal, raising a purely legal issue of limitation and jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings, is admissible for adjudication. 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-2016, is barred by limitation and consequently, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's medical condition (typhoid fever) and not willful or deliberate. Reliance was placed on medical certificates and prescriptions. - The additional ground is purely legal and can be adjudicated on existing facts, citing CIT vs. NTPC. - The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation, as per the provisions of Section 149(1) and the Supreme Court's decision in Sai Kumar Mateti vs. ITO. - The reassessment proceedings and order are barred by limitation and without jurisdiction as notices were issued beyond the permissible period of six years from the end of AY 2015-16. Revenue's Contentions: - Did not strongly object to the condonation of delay. - Opposed the admission of additional grounds, stating they were not raised before lower authorities. - Argued that the time limit extended under the 5th and 6th provisos to Section 149(1) was available to the Assessing Officer, making the notice within the period of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 147,Section 144,Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 07.10.2026

PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 03.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the cause of delay. She

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 →