SUBHASH HANUMANTHAPPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1325/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), and such appeal has been on 19-02-2020. In Form No. 35 filed by the assessee, it was stated that the date of service of the order was on 08-02-2020. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices fixing the case for hearing. However, there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 60 days without any petition for cond6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the claimed delay, particularly regarding the disputed date of service of the assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay issue after providing the assessee a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, proprietor of M/s. Sri Baidyanath Book Distributors, filed an ITR for AY 2017-18. After no response to notices u/s 142(1), the AO made a best judgment assessment u/s 144, adding Rs. 50,96,500 for demonetization period deposits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating a 60-day delay without a condonation petition, despite the assessee claiming the assessment order was served much later via a u/s 226(3) notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay, especially regarding the disputed date of service of the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

2 Subhash Hanumanthappa

Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s. Sri Baidyanath Book Distributors, filed his ret

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 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →