GUDDENNAGARI RAMAKRISHNA,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1191/HYD/2024Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 March 2025AY 2017-185 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal did not constitute a 'reasonable cause' or 'sufficient cause' as required under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had merely shifted the blame to an unnamed third person, which could not be examined, and therefore, the assessee had not demonstrated any genuine reason for the delay. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Kolte Patil Developer Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and the Bombay High Court decision in Subodh Prakash vs. JCIT, which emphasize the necessity of a valid explanation for condoning delays. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Guddennagari Ramakrishna, an individual, failed to file his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on information of cash deposits of Rs. 1,26,88,500/-, cash withdrawals of Rs. 10,000/-, and other interest of Rs. 7,500/-, reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1) were issued. As the assessee provided no explanation, the AO determined total income at Rs. 1,26,96,000/- under Section 69A, vide order dated 11.03.2022. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who also issued multiple notices. In the absence of any reply, the CIT(A) sustained the additions. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was filed with a delay of 285 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned on the grounds stated by the assessee. The assessee's contention, as presented in the petition for condonation of delay, was that their accountant, responsible for tax matters, failed to monitor the Income Tax Portal and inform the management about the orders, leading to the delay. The assessee essentially shifted the blame to a third party without naming them. The Revenue's contention, implied by the dismissal of the appeal in limine due to the unaccepted delay, was that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute a reasonable or sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “B” BENCH : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

1 ITA.No.1191/Hyd./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.1191/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Guddennagari The Income Tax Officer, vs. Ramakrishna, KURNOOL. Ward-1, PIN – 518464 PAN ANPPR5576A KURNOOL. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. :

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 02.02.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year 2017-2018. As per the 2 ITA.No.1191/Hyd./2024 information made available with the Department, the assessee has made cash deposits in current account at Rs.1,26,88,500/-, cash withdrawals from current account of Rs.10,000/- and received other interest of Rs.7,500/-. In absence of return of income, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, therefore, the case of the assessee has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] and notice u/sec.148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2021 through ITBA portal after getting approval from the Competent Authority. The Assessing Officer also issued statutory notices u/sec.142(1) dated 17.06.2021, 22.11.2021 and 06.12.2021. In absence of any explanation/reply filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,26,96,000/- [i.e., Rs.1,26,88,500/- cash deposit + other interest of Rs.7,500/-] u/sec.69A of the Act vide order dated 11.03.2022 passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

3 ITA.No.1191/Hyd./2024 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) has issued notices dated 16.08.2023, 06.09.2023, 13.09.2023, 19.10.2023, 20.10.2023 and 01.01.2024 calling the assessee to substantiate his case. In absence of any reply from the side of the assessee to substantiate his case, the learned CIT(A) has sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking for adjournment has been filed. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits, after hearing the Learned DR. We find at the very outset, that there is a delay of 285 days in filing the instant appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal and considered relevant reasons given by the assessee in the petition filed for condonation of delay. We find that the assessee has stated at that his accountant who 4 ITA.No.1191/Hyd./2024 is responsible for looking after the tax matters, did not look at the orders of the Income Tax Portal and informed the Management to take appropriate steps in filing the appeal. However, on going through the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of the delay, the assessee has simply shifted the blame on a third person without referring even his name and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that, the assessee does not have any reasons to explain the delay in filling the appeal, except to shift in the blame on a third person because he cannot be examined. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons given by the assessee does not give any ‘reasonable cause’ so as to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developer Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT 2017- TIOL-185-SC wherein it has been held that when there is no explanation given for delay in filing of the appeal, such delay in filing cannot be condoned. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Subodh Prakash vs. JCIT 2017-TIOL-2249-HC-P&H-IT wherein it 5 ITA.No.1191/Hyd./2024 has been held when the explanation submitted by the appellant does not satisfy the test of ‘sufficient cause’ as required u/sec.5 of Limitation Act, 1963, the delay cannot be condoned. We, thus, confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →