KANALA VENKATA PRATHAP REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation due to the significant and unexplained delay. Furthermore, the assessee failed to respond to notices issued by both the Tribunal and the CIT(A), indicating a lack of representation.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order dated 01.02.2024 of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee neither appeared for the hearing, nor were the notices served, and there was an unexplained delay of 451 days in filing the appeal without any application for condonation.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed with a significant and unexplained delay, coupled with the assessee's non-appearance and non-response to notices, is maintainable before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.02.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the A.Y.2015-16.
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpires from the record that the notice issued to the assessee through registered post is received back unserved with the postal remarks “no such assessee in the door number”. Thus, the assessee is not found to be at the given address. Further, the notice was also issued through e-mail to the mail ID given by the assessee in the Form 36. Despite the notices, there is no response on behalf of the assessee nor any representation. The assessee has also failed to remove the defect in the appeal as there is a delay of 451 days in filing the present appeal and the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay or otherwise explained the cause of the said delay of 451 days. Accordingly, we propose to dispose of this appeal on the ground of maintainability of the appeal.
The Ld.DR has contended that the present appeal of the assessee is not valid and liable to be dismissed, being barred by limitation, as the assessee has failed to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He has further submitted that even there was no representation before the CIT(A) and the assessee failed to comply with any of the five notices issued by the CIT(A).
Accordingly, in view of the fact that the present appeal of the assessee is invalid, being barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on conclusion of hearing on 18th September , 2025.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
