KANALA VENKATA PRATHAP REDDY,ANANTAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member
आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1213/Hyd/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Kanala Venkata Pratap
Reddy
Anantapur
PAN : BYDPP6731R
Vs. Income Tax Officer
Ward-1
Anantapur
(Appellant)
(Respondent)
निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: None
रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 18/09/2025
घोर्णध की तधरीख/
Date of Pronouncement:
18/09/2025
आदेश / ORDER
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. 2. 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 2
Kanala Venkata Prathap Reddy 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.
3
Kanala Venkata Prathap Reddy
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. (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 18th September, 2025 L.Rama, SPS Copy to:
S.No Addresses
1
Shri Kanala Venkata Prathap Reddy, D.No.19-3-606-1,
Bhavani Nagar, Anantapur
2
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 3rd Road, Anantapur
4
The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool
4
The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad Benches
5
Guard FileSENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY
ITAT, HYDERABAD