DANDEBOINA RAMESH,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-(1), WARANGAL

ITA 1661/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 March 2026AY 2015-167 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an RTC employee, was not conversant with tax laws and the delay occurred while seeking a consultant. The Tribunal found the delay not deliberate or intentional and considered it to be sufficiently explained. It distinguished the revenue's relied-upon cases, stating they involved no reasonable cause for delay, unlike the present case. The Tribunal followed the principle of a justice-oriented and liberal approach in condoning delay, as laid down in *Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT*. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144, meaning the addition under Section 69A was not properly examined on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the issue afresh on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard and allowing the assessee to file necessary evidence. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for not properly prosecuting the matter before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dandeboina Ramesh, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on information about cash deposits. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued, to which the assessee did not respond. Consequently, an order under Section 148A(d) was passed, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 2,07,420/-. During reassessment, the AO found actual cash deposits of Rs. 26,31,000/-. As the assessee provided no explanation, the AO treated this amount as unexplained under Section 69A and completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, determining the total income at Rs. 28,38,420/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but faced a delay of 231 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation without adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 231 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) ought to be condoned? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's contention: The delay was due to the assessee being an RTC employee, not conversant with tax laws, and searching for a suitable consultant. The delay was bona fide and not intentional. Relied on *Ram Nath Sao & Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others*. Prayed for condonation and remand for adjudication on merits. Revenue's contention: The assessee failed to show any reasonable cause for the delay. The CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal on limitation. Relied on *Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors*, *Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)*, *Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through his LR*, and *Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr Vs. M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited*. 2. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B is invalid, erroneous, and bad in law, particularly concerning the addition under Section 69A? (Question of law and fact, turning on procedural validity and merits of addition).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 149,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Moorthy K, SrAR

PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Dandeboina Ramesh (‘the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated

25/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“4, On the facts and in the circumstances of th

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 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →