KANDIPALLI APPALA RAJU,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 321/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 September 2025AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal was condoned, as the assessee had provided sufficient cause in the form of medical reasons, supported by a medical certificate, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Regarding the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to present its case on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to furnish/update its E-mail address and appear before the CIT(A) on all scheduled hearing dates. The Tribunal noted that no order would be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the other grounds raised by the assessee, including the one concerning the addition under Section 69A, were allowed for statistical purposes, as they did not require adjudication at that stage. The operative direction was to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kandipalli Appala Raju, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was delayed by 207 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing severe back pain due to disc prolapse from October 2024 to May 2025, supported by a medical certificate. The ITAT considered the submissions and the medical evidence, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal was admitted, and the ITAT proceeded to hear the grounds raised by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned? (Question of fact) - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to severe back pain and advised bed rest from October 2024 to May 2025, which was beyond his control and not intentional. A medical certificate was provided as evidence. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte? (Question of law and fact) - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte, and the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case on merits. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.65,96,200 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act towards unexplained deposits in the bank account? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 69A) - Assessee's contention: The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified. (This ground was raised without prejudice to the ex-parte decision issue). - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate

आदेश /O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 27.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”], for the A.Y. 2018-19.

Kandipalli Appala Raju 2. The present appeal is delayed by 207 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, which is duly supported by affidavit of the assessee. In his application, the assessee has submitted as follows: - “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed on 27.08.2024. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 26.10.2024. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 21.05.2025 resulting in a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. 2 The appellant suffered from severe back pain due to disc prolapse during the second week of October, 2024. He was advised to take complete bed rest along with medication till the pain is is reduced. The appellant suffered from back pain till the second week of May, 2025. He was under bed rest and treatment during the period from 12.10.2024 to 16.05.2025 (copy of medical certificate is enclosed herewith). Therefore, the appellant could not attend to any other affairs during this period. As soon as the condition improved, he took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 21.05.2025.

3.

Thus, the delay of 207 days in filing the appeal was due to the reasons mentioned above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.”

3. Accordingly, the assessee has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. In support of the contentions made in the application, the assessee has also placed on record the medical certificate issued by the medical practitioner.

4.

Having considered the submissions of the assessee in his application seeking condonation of delay and perusal of the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that there was sufficient cause which prevented the Page No. 2 Kandipalli Appala Raju assessee from filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal and proceed to decide the appeal.

5.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte.

3. Without prejudice to Grounds No.2, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.65,96,200 made by the assessing officer u /s 69A of the Act towards unexplained deposits in the bank account.

4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

6.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now in the appeal before us, the assessee duly represented by the Ld.AR wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the Ld. AO. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be hereby granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits, after considering of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention,

Page No. 3 Kandipalli Appala Raju no order shall be passed without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to furnish/update his E-mail address in the records before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the hearing notice(s) are sent on the operational e-mail address. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter being restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →