AKHILA DEVI JAVVADI,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD-1, KOTHAGUDEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 204/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2015-169 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee ought to have been vigilant, the reasons provided for the delay, primarily work pressure as a salaried employee and learning about the assessment late, were bonafide. The CIT(A) should have adopted a justice-oriented and liberal approach, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur, and condoned the delay instead of dismissing the appeal at the threshold. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed him to condone the delay and dispose of the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ms. Akhila Devi Javvadi, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, against an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated January 17, 2024. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 as the assessee had not filed her return of income despite receiving salary and interest income and making time deposits of Rs. 52,00,000/-. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 61,45,059/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 74 days, and her application for condonation of delay was dismissed. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT is against this dismissal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in not appreciating the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, thereby not adjudicating the issues on merits, as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to work pressure as she was employed as a manager with HSBC Software Development India Pvt. Ltd., substantial time taken to engage a counsel, and learning about the assessment only through her consultant. - The delay was for bonafide reasons, not due to any malafide conduct or lackadaisical approach, and therefore, should be condoned. - The matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. Revenue's contentions: - The CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as the assessee failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Akhila Devi Javvadi, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, 1- 1-298/2/B3, Sowbhagya Avenue Apartments, 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1, Hyderabad – 500020. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Kothagudem.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →