BHARGAV KUMAR BITLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2251/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 November 2026AY 2020-218 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a justifiable or reasonable cause for the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal. The reasons provided by the assessee were considered cryptic and lacked detail, indicating a lack of due diligence. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay. As the appeal was dismissed in limine (at the threshold) on the grounds of limitation, the Tribunal stated that it would not adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, without sufficient cause, will be dismissed without considering the merits of the case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhargav Kumar Bitla, filed an appeal against the order dated 19.06.2025 of the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021. The appeal was filed with a delay of 107 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as delay in obtaining appeal documents, financial hardships, and personal medical inconveniences. The revenue, represented by the learned DR, opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the assessee had not provided sufficient explanation for the 107-day delay. The assessee's representative had previously sought an adjournment, and subsequently, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for multiple hearings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to reasons such as delay in obtaining full set of appeal documents, financial hardships, and medical personal inconveniences. Revenue's contention: The revenue vehemently opposed the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee had not explained any reason for the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are liable to be adjudicated on merits? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee raised multiple grounds challenging the assessment order, including errors in framing the assessment, substantial disallowances, breach of principles of natural justice, non-application of mind, and failure to appreciate evidence. (These grounds are listed in the judgment but were not adjudicated due to the dismissal of the appeal on limitation).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(3),Section 250,Section 250(6),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 04.11.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 19.06.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) “The orders under 143(3) read with 144B and 250 are bad in law.

The National Faceless Assessment Centre 2) Assessment Unit has erred both in law and on facts in framing the assessment and making substantial disallowances to the extent of 5109578 which are not sustainable.

The Assessment Unit has further erred in finalizing 3) the assessment on an entirely enhanced basis as against the proposal contained in the earlier show cause notice without granting a fair and proper opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching Section 144B, Section 142(3) and the principles of natural justice.

It Assessment Unit has erred in not duly 4) appreciating the detailed explanations, records and supporting documents furnished by the appellant in response to the notices issued and in not assigning cogent reasons for rejecting them. 5) The Assessment Unit has erred in disallowing business expenditure, particularly relating to commission, salary, advertisement, conveyance and vehicle hire, which has been done in an ad hoc and arbitrary manner and is contrary to Section 37(1) of the Act, especially when the corresponding business receipts have been fully accepted.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC 6) has erred in upholding the additions without proper adjudication of the evidences and grounds raised and without rendering a speaking order as mandated under Section 250(6).

Both the authorities have erred in concluding that 7) the appellant failed to substantiate the expenditure, whereas the documentary evidence was in place.

8) The impugned orders suffer from non application of mind, lack of proper appreciation of facts and incorrect interpretation of law, warranting appropriate relief from this Honble Tribunal. The additions therefore deserve to be deleted in full. 9) The appellant craves leave to alter, amend, add to 10) any of the above grounds or any additional grounds as the circumstances deem necessary. For these and any other ground or grounds that 11) may be urged at the time of the hearing, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.”

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing repeatedly. It transpires from the record that earlier this appeal was listed for hearing on 08.06.2026 and one Mr. Naga Phanindra Sarma, C.A. appeared on behalf of the assessee and sought adjournment of the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing of the appeal was adjourned at the request of the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee to 03.08.2026. On 03.08.2026 nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the hearing was adjourned to 05.08.2026 but again nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the hearing was adjourned to 15.10.2026 i.e., today. It is pertinent to note that after taking adjournment of the hearing on the earlier date, the assessee has stopped appearing in the subsequent hearings. Therefore, the Bench proposed to hear and dispose of the appeal ex-parte.

4.

At the outset, there is a delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay as well as affidavit which reads as under:

4.1. Thus, the assessee has explained the cause of delay due to delay in obtaining full set of appeal documents, financial hardships and medical personal inconveniences.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any reason for the delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant record. The reasons explained by the assessee are very cryptic without giving any detail how the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Thus, the assessee has failed to explain any justifiable reasonable cause, much less sufficient cause for the delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Though the matters should be decided on merits and not on technicalities so as to give preference to the cause of substantial justice however, when the assessee has not explained any reasonable or justifiable cause for the delay in filing the appeal then, the reasons explained by the assessee cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for the delay. Even otherwise, it is apparent from the petition as well as affidavit filed by the assessee that the assessee has given very vague and non-speaking explanation which shows that the assessee has not shown any due diligence in taking the steps for filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to condone the delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as barred by limitation therefore, we do not propose to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in its appeal.

7.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.11.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANJUNATHA G VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 04th November, 2026 VBP Copy to: BHARGAV KUMAR BITLA, 1-3-709/1/1 KUMMARIBASTI, OPP 1 SHARADHA MEDICAL KAVADIGUDA,, HYDERABAD-500080, TELANGANA ITO, WARD-4(1), O/O ITO, WARD-4(1), IT 2 TOWERS, HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA 3 THE PR. CIT, HYDERABAD. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY Digitally signed VADREVU by VADREVU PRASADA RAO PRASADA Date: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / RAO 2026.11.04 I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD 14:31:11 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →