KUNKULAGUNTA MALLIKARJUNA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view of the CIT(A), who, in my view, in the absence of any plausible explanation of the assessee regarding the delay involved in filing of the appeal, had r...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

2(c) of Form-35 the order was served on 23/03/2024. In this way the appeal was filed late. As per the provisions of section 249 of the Act appeal was to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the order was served. The appellant mentioned 'Yes' against Column No. 14 of Form 35- "Whether there

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

2,19,070/-. The case has been subsequently reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the information available with the department, shows that the assessee has huge cash deposits in his bank account maintained with IDBI Bank, Kakinada. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31-03-2021 was issued and duly served

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons in all the appeals that, on 24.04.2025, while travelling on a two-wheeler, he slipped and fell, sustaining fracture of the right ankle, and was advised bed rest for fifty days. Thereafter, on 22.06.2025, he was affected with dengue fever and confined to the house for another 2-3 weeks. These unforeseen health circumstances disrupted his regular routine, and in the process of going to the counsel's office for signing th

2,19,070/-. The case has been subsequently reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per the information available with the department, shows that the assessee has huge cash deposits in his bank account maintained with IDBI Bank, Kakinada. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31-03-2021 was issued and duly served

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

condonation. Regarding the 4-day delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found the delay to be small and the assessee was willing to file an application if given an opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "142(1)", "69A", "115BBE", "249(2

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay works out to 1777 days. According to Section 249(2) of the Act the limitation period for filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to condone

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

delay works out to 1777 days. According to Section 249(2) of the Act the limitation period for filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Ld. CIT(A) to condone

SYED IRFAN HAZARI,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), GUNTUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 249(2) of the Act. In column no. 14 of Form No. 35, the appellant has admitted to the delay in filing and has given the reason for condonation

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249

GAJULLANKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OP SOCIETY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay by 65 days, ignoring the bonafide reasons and medical evidence submitted by the appellant, and failed to appreciate that the delay was due to unforeseen medical emergency of the Secretary of the rural Co-operative Society, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249

BOLLINA SIVARAMA KRISHNA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2022 & 30/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Bollina Sivarama Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.78-15-5 Ward-2(1) G-1, Rk Towers Rajahmundry Sastry Hospital Road Rajahmundry [Pan : Aiupb4182C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita No.10005/2018-19/Cit(A)/Rjy & 10151/2017-18/Cit(A)/Rjy Dated 12.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 With The Delay Of 735 Days. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.12.2019, As 2

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with the delay of 276 days, submitting that the assessee has gone through a major surgery and hence, could not file the appeal in time. The Ld.CIT(A) held that as per sub-section 2 of section 249

ANJAN DASGUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 218/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anjan Dasgupta, Vs. Dcit, Gurgaon. Circle-1(1), Pan: Afspd0589G Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Nitin Gulati, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 249(2

PALLA MADHUSUDANA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.15/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Palla Madhusudana Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer Door No.14-6-7, Ramajogipeta Ward-1(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Bhrpp0382F] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri N.Ravi Babu, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, [Cit(A)]-6, Hyderabad In Appeal No.10357/2018-19/A3 Cit(A)-6 Dated 03.12.2018 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Carrying On Business In The Sale Of Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2011-12 On 25.09.2011, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,28,950/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny, Accordingly

section 249 of the Act, CIT(A) has been empowered to admit an appeal which has been filed after the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days, but subject to recording his satisfaction that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the said period. As such the CIT(A) is vested with the power

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,KANURU vs. ITO, TDS, WARD(1), ELURU, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

249(3) of the IT Act for failure of filing the appeal within in the limitation U/s.249(2) of the IT Act. 3. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal bearing explained sufficient cause for non filing of appeal within due date along with settled propositions that a liberal

BARIGALA SAROJA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal. In respect of the belated filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit dated 24/01/2025 and explained the reasons for such delay. For the sake of immediate reference, the contents of the said affidavit are extracted herein below: "1.......

delay by giving cogent reasons supported by evidence, the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation and not maintainable as per the provisions of section 249(2) r.w.s 249(3) of the Act and hence 5 Barigala Saroja vs. ITO dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee

KVC INFRASTRUCTURES,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Us:

Section 249 of the Act, in all fairness, ought to have condoned the delay involved in the appeal filed by the assessee firm before him. Our aforesaid view that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with an application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal is supported