LAKSHMI NARAYANA KOTHA,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 480/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 October 2025AY 2013-1411 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before it, finding the assessee's explanation of health issues to be genuine and bonafide, and applying the principle of leniency from Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC). Regarding the dismissal by the CIT(A) for a 4-day delay, the ITAT noted that while the assessee had admitted the delay and undertaken to file a condonation petition, they failed to do so despite multiple notices. However, considering the very small delay and the assessee's submission that they were willing to file the application and explain the reasons if given an opportunity, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not provided adequate opportunity. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the matter after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file the condonation application and explain the reasons for the delay. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Lakshmi Narayana Kotha, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17. There was a delay of 106 days in filing these appeals before the ITAT, which the assessee attributed to personal health issues including an ankle fracture and dengue fever. The assessee's appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for these assessment years were dismissed in limine due to a 4-day delay in filing, as the assessee had not filed a condonation application. The assessee's business involved the purchase and sale of paddy. The assessment for AY 2013-14 was reopened under Section 147, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3 crores under Section 69A as unexplained money, brought to tax under Section 115BBE, due to cash deposits in the assessee's bank account for which the assessee could not furnish sufficient evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 106 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation of personal health issues. Assessee's contention: The delay was due to unforeseen health circumstances (ankle fracture and dengue fever) and not due to negligence. A doctor's certificate was provided, and the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice, following a lenient approach as per MST Katiji (supra). Revenue's contention: The revenue did not strongly oppose the condonation of delay in view of the genuine and unforeseen circumstances explained by the assessee. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals for AY 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17 in limine due to a 4-day delay in filing, without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to explain the delay and file a condonation application. Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for a minor delay of four days without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without allowing the assessee to explain the delay. The matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity. Revenue's contention: The assessee was provided sufficient opportunities by the CIT(A) to explain the delay, but failed to do so. The dismissal by the CIT(A) in terms of Section 249(2) of the Act was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench

For Appellant: Shri Badicala Yadagiri - CIT-DR

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

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Mr. Lakshmi Narayana Kotha, 8-24/1-4C1, Madhavarao Street, Elvin Peta, Gandhi Nagar, Kakinada – 533004, Andhra Pradesh. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →