VENKATA SUBBA REDDY VENNAPUSA,KADAPA V. ITO, WARD-1, CUDDAPAH

ITA 1022/HYD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary contention was the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT (A) on grounds of limitation without considering the application for condonation of delay due to the appellant's health issues during the relevant period. The ITAT found that the appellant had a reasonable cause for the delay, supported by medical certificates, and thus condoned the delay, remanding the case for a decision on the substantive issues raised, including the validity of the notice under section 148 and the treatment of certain deposits as income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793461 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" ITA No 1022 of 2024 Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa Page 1 of 5 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1022/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa, KADAPA PAN:AQCPV2508C Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 KADAPA (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12/08/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1022 of 2024 Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa Page 2 of 5 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided further opportunity before deciding the appeal ex parte, requiring the assessee to file letters of confirmation from the creditors. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in completing the assessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the notice u/s 148 is not validly issued and that therefore, the assessment is invalid. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the deposits made into the bank account of Rs.85,02,500/- as the income of the appellant. The learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the said amount represents the business receipt and was deposited into the bank account and is already accounted for. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the credits to the extent of Rs.3,26,74,916/- are not properly explained. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided further opportunity to the appellant before holding that the appellant did not prove the cash credits aggregating to Rs.3,26,74,916/- 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the credits are genuine and the amount was received through banking channels and, therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the submissions made and allowed the appeal. 8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) which was not condoned by the learned CIT (A) and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed being barred by limitation. He has referred to the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1022 of 2024 Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa Page 3 of 5 relevant part of the impugned order and submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation for want of an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal belatedly. However, the assessee has duly filed an application for condonation of delay which is placed at page No.50 of the paper book. He has further submitted that the assessee has also duly explained the cause of delay in form No.35 itself, but ignoring all these facts and documents, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The learned CIT (A) has reproduced the statement of facts at page No.2 as under: “The appellant is an individual doing Business in Mines the assessment year under consideration, during demonetization period. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s147 of the I.T act on 23-Feb-2024. The said order was served on 11/03/2024. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner is fling appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 03/06/2024. In this regard the appellant humbly submit that the petitioner has been suffered from Hyper Tension and Vertigo from so long so doctor suggested to take bed rest from 01/04/2024 to 10/05/2024. Medical certificate issued Dr. ARJUN KUMAR AVVARU., (MBBS, MD. General Medicine) is annexed. Subsequently, on recovery from illness the petitioner approached the Advocate/Auditors; got the appeal papers prepared and fling the appeal ONLINE on 11/05/2024. The petitioner humbly submits that, there is a delay of 54 days in fling the beyond the control of the petitioner and is not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1022 of 2024 Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa Page 4 of 5 intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the learned CIT (A) to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.” 6. Thus, the assessee in the statement of facts has also explained the reasons for the delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal that the assessee was having some health issues and medical certificate was also annexed along with the statement of facts. We further note that the assessee also filed a petition for condonation of delay which reads as under: ““The appellant is an individual doing Business in Mines the assessment year under consideration, during demonetization period. The Assessing officer completed the assessment u/s147 of the I.T act on 23-Feb-2024. The said order was served on 11/03/2024. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner is fling appeal before the learned CIT (A) on 03/06/2024. In this regard the appellant humbly submit that the petitioner has been suffered from Hyper Tension and Vertigo from so long so doctor suggested to take bed rest from 01/04/2024 to 10/05/2024. Medical certificate issued Dr. ARJUN KUMAR AVVARU., (MBBS, MD. General Medicine) is annexed. Subsequently, on recovery from illness the petitioner approached the Advocate/Auditors; got the appeal papers prepared and fling the appeal ONLINE on 11/05/2024. The petitioner humbly submits that, there is a delay of 54 days in fling the beyond the control of the petitioner and is not intentional. The petitioner, therefore, prays the learned CIT (A) to kindly condone the delay and pass appropriate orders in the matter.” 7. The assessee also annexed a medical certificate of the Doctor from Govt. Medical College, Kadapa. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee had duly filed an application for condonation of delay and also filed a medical certificate to explain the cause of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A), we are satisfied that the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 1022 of 2024 Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa Page 5 of 5 assessee was having a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is condoned. 8. Since the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, therefore, the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for deciding the appeal on merits and specifically the issues raised by the against the validity of the reopening of the assessment. Needless to say, the assessee be given an appropriate opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 26th September, 2025. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sri Venkata Subba Reddy Vennapusa, 5/16A Sreenivasapuram, Thippireddypalle, Pendlimarri, Kadapa 516001 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Kadappa, Cuddapah A.P 3 Pr. CIT - 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "