SAI SRI ANUSHA VALLURU,VIJAYAWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 468/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 February 2026AY 2009-1013 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons. It was noted that the AO had subsequently vacated the impugned addition of LTCG through a Section 154 order. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the AO for re-verification and to vacate the addition if found correct.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-10 based on a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and added Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. A significant delay occurred in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order sustaining an addition, which was later vacated by the AO under Section 154, is valid. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HONBLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HONBLE

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A.No.468/VIZ/2025
I.T.A.No.469/VIZ/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

I.T.A.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →