Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
The Narsapur Brahmana ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palkol on 13 February, 2026
आयकर अपीऱीय न्यायाधिकरण, विशाखापट्नम "एस एम ् सी" बेंच में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Visakhapatnam "SMC" Bench, Visakhapatnam
श्री विजय पाऱ राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री ओम्कारे श्िर चिदारा, माननीय ऱेखा सदस्य
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.738/Viz/2025
(निर्धा रण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16)
The Narsapur Brahmana Vs. Income Tax Officer
Samakhya Ward-1
Narsapur Palakol
PAN : AAEAT0110H
(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)
करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Advocate
Assessee Represented by (Hybrid)
राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR
Department Represented by
सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 20.01.2026
Date of Conclusion of Hearing
घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 13.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement
ORDER
PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, A.M :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A), Raipur in DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2025- 26/1081236151(1) dated 26.09.2025, arising out of order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16.
2ITA No.738/Viz/2025
The Narsapur Brahmana Samakhya
2. In the above case, appeal was filed with the delay of 886 days before the Ld.CIT(A). The reasons given for delayed filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) are as follows :
(a) The appellant contact details like, user ID, password and e-
mail ID etc. were under the control of the earlier consultant and he did not respond in time.
(b) There is a part time employee, who is looking after the accounts of the society and he does not know the complicated income tax appeal issues.
(c) There is no malafide intention or deliberate lapse on the part of the appellant. In view of the same, the appellant has requested before the Ld.CIT(A) that the delay may be condoned and adjudicate the matter on merits.
3. After considering the submissions of the appellant society, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the condonation of delay in filing the income tax appeals is not automatic and the appellant must demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not filing appeal with the prescribed time. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decisions, such as Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) and P.K.Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala (1997), where, it was held that while a liberal approach is adopted for 3 ITA No.738/Viz/2025 The Narsapur Brahmana Samakhya "sufficient cause", it must be supported by a cogent, reasonable explanation along with evidence. General claims of ignorance or miscommunication are usually insufficient without documentary proof. Since there is no evidence for the reasons mentioned by the appellant, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the application for condonation of delay was rejected. As a result, the appeal was dismissed in-limine as barred by limitation. It was concluded by Ld.CIT(A) that the appeal stands dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the Ld.CIT(A), an appeal was filed before ITAT. The Ld.AR of the appellant society repeated the arguments, which were made before the Ld.CIT(A) and pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be adjudicated on merits. The Ld.AR of appellant has further stated that the net amount is below the taxable limit and the society cannot not be taxed at maximum marginal rate, as far as the merits are concerned.
5. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of MBR Educational Society Vs. ITO, in ITA No.665/Hyd/2025, A.Y.2018-19, where, the coordinate Bench of Hyderabad held that the delay of 441 days is substantial and cannot be brushed aside lightly. Several cases law were discussed in light of decisions.. and finally it was held that, when there is inordinate dely, the assessee is under a higher obligaton to furnish clear, credible 4 ITA No.738/Viz/2025 The Narsapur Brahmana Samakhya and cogent reasons demonstrating due diligence. Finally, the coordinate Bench decided that the explanation given by the appellant is wholly unconvincing and the delay was not condoned by placing the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006. Finally, the coordinate Bench decided that the appeal cannot be condoned and the appeal was dismissed in-limine.
6. After taking into consideration, the arguments of both sides, it is decided that the inordinate delay of 886 days cannot be condoned, especially, when there are no clear reasons with evidences to demonstrate that the appeal was filed with sufficient cause within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act.
7. In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is dismissed in- limine.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th February, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(विजय पाऱ राि) (ओम्कारे श्िर चिदारा)
(VIJAY PAL RAO) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA)
उपधध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Visakhapatnam
dated 13.02.2026.
L.Rama/sps
5
ITA No.738/Viz/2025
The Narsapur Brahmana Samakhya
आदे शकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-
1. निर्धा ऩरती/The : The Narsapur Brahmana Samakhya, Assessee Addanki Vari Street, Narsapur
2. रधजस्व/ The : The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Revenue Bhavan, Doddipatla Road, Palakol
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam
4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनिनर् , आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, नवशधखधपट् िम / The DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam
5. गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदे शधिुसधर / BY ORDER LOKIREDDI RAMA cn=LOKIREDDI RAMA c=IN o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ou=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2026-02-17 12:08+05:30 Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam