ANIL KUMAR VELLAGA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), GUNTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 511/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 November 2025AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee cited "Lack of awareness of appeal procedures" and "Time taken for professional consultations" as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that ignorance of law and time taken for professional consultations do not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Since the assessee did not advance any other reason for the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument and concluded that there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anil Kumar Vellage, an employee, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 declaring Rs. 1,01,346/-. His case was selected for scrutiny as his declared salary income was significantly lower than that in Form 26AS. During a search operation on M/s. Gamescraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., incriminating documents revealed gaming transactions by the assessee totaling Rs. 1,44,68,470/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 3,03,30,894/- under section 69A, Rs. 8,62,055/- as disallowance of exemption/deduction under salary income, and Rs. 1,44,64,870/- as lottery income. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay, without condonation. The assessee is now appealing this dismissal to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and law and passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as contended by the assessee? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, failing to appreciate the reasons stated in the affidavit, as argued by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay and failed to properly appreciate the reasons provided in the affidavit supporting the delay. The assessee relied on written submissions and affidavits filed before the CIT(A) and requested directions for the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the case on merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue objected to remitting the file back to the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the assessee's cited reason for delay, "Ignorance of law" and time taken for professional consultations, does not constitute a valid cause for condonation. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine. The Revenue requested that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 132(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Vinod, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT(DR)

आदेश /O R D E R

PER SHRI S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078020196(1) dated 30.06.2025 arising out of I.T.A.No.511/VIZ/2025 Anil Kumar Vellage order passed under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 18.03.2024.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a salaried employee and filed his return of income on 20.07.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.1,01,346/- for the A.Y. 2022-23. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason that the salary income declared by the assessee in the ITR is substantially less than the income as per Form 26AS. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act on various dates were issued and served on the assessee. Further, information was received that during the course of search operation under section 132(1) of the Act in the case of M/s.Gamescraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., on 15.03.2022 certain documents of incriminating nature were found and seized. From perusal of incriminating documents, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] observed that assessee has made various transactions of gaming with Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd., totalling to Rs.1,44,68,470/-. Finally, a show-cause notice was issued on 08.03.2024. In response, assessee furnished his reply on 10.03.2024 without any supporting evidences. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by observing that the contention of the assessee could not be accepted as it is not supported by complete evidences. The Ld.AO on being not satisfied with the submissions furnished by the assessee completed the assessment proceedings by determining the income

Page. No 2

I.T.A.No.511/VIZ/2025 Anil Kumar Vellage of the assessee at Rs. 4,56,57,819/- by making addition of Rs.3,03,30,894/- under section 69A of the Act and Rs.8,62,055/- as addition on account of disallowances of Exemption / deduction under the head salary income and Rs.1,44,64,870/- as addition on account of lottery income under the head income from other sources.

3.

On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in-limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

4.

On being aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: -

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law, and is passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the delay in proper perspective. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

5.

The only issue emanating from the grounds of the appeal is against the dismissing of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the reasons stated in the affidavit citing for the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] relied on the written submissions and the affidavits filed before Ld. CIT(A) for the delay in filing of Page. No 3

I.T.A.No.511/VIZ/2025 Anil Kumar Vellage the appeal. He therefore pleaded that appropriate direction may be given to the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the case on merits.

6.

Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly objected to remitting the file back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR submitted that assessee has cited reason “Ignorance of law” as cause for the delay in filing the appeal, this cannot constitute a valid cause and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated and dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be upheld.

7.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has cited the following reasons as being the cause for delay in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

i. Lack of awareness of appeal procedures. ii. Time taken for professional consultations.

8.

There is merit in the argument of the Ld. DR that ignorance of law and time taken for professional consultations would not constitute sufficient cause to be condoned for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee has not advanced any other reason before Ld. CIT(A) for the delay in filing of the appeal. We therefore find no merit in the argument of the Ld.AR and we are Page. No 4

I.T.A.No.511/VIZ/2025 Anil Kumar Vellage inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as there is no infirmity in his order. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

9.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07th November, 2025.

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 →