AHMED ALTAF SAYEED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO (INT TAXN) - 2, HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 473/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Ahmed Altaf Sayeed Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International PAN: BQAPS2670B Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate P Vinod राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 20/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ahmed Altaf Sayeed (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 08.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had entrusted the work of filing the appeal to his

Chartered Accountant and was under the bona fide belief that the Chartered Accountant would file the appeal within the prescribed time. Thereafter the assessee proceeded to Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage. However, upon returning from Saudi Arabia, when the assessee contacted the Chartered Accountant, he came to know that, due to heavy pressure of audit work and filing of returns, the Chartered Accountant had inadvertently lost sight of the matter and missed the due date for filing the appeal. As soon as the assessee reminded the Chartered Accountant about the appeal, the appeal was immediately filed before the Tribunal. It was thus submitted that, in the aforesaid circumstances, a delay of 110 days had occurred in filing the appeal. In support of the explanation, the assessee has placed on record a copy of his passport demonstrating his travel to Saudi Arabia during the relevant period. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and, therefore, prayed that the delay of 110 days be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the assessee has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the delay should not be condoned and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the condonation petition, affidavit and supporting documents

filed by the assessee. It is evident from the material placed before us that the assessee had travelled to Saudi Arabia during the relevant period and had entrusted the filing of the appeal to his Chartered Accountant before proceeding on such travel. The explanation of the assessee that he was under a bona fide belief that the appeal would be filed by the Chartered Accountant within the prescribed time appears to be reasonable. The delay subsequently occurred as the Chartered Accountant, due to pressure of professional work relating to audits and filing of returns, inadvertently failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period. We further find that, upon the assessee’s return and reminder to the Chartered Accountant, the appeal was filed without any further undue delay. Thus, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee along with the supporting material, we are satisfied that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a delay of 166 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the question of condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court accordingly condoned the delay and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal (supra), we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the

prescribed period. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 110 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO‘ for Rs.2,13,664 U/S.270A of the Act. 3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the disallowance of cost of improvement in the assessment proceedings does not automatically leads to under reporting of income in consequence to mis-reporting of income for levy of penalty. 4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that the appellant had incurred cost of improvement in the year 2003 and that after a period of almost 20 years, he was not in a position to file evidence for the cost of improvement. (Tax Effect: Rs.2,13,664) 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed for A.Y 2018-019 in the hands of the appellant is bad in law as the approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 4.4.2022 beyond a period of 3 years from the end of the relevant A.Y was taken from CIT (IT&TP), Hyderabad, instead of DG/PCCIT, as required under section 151 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Authorities below could not have levied/sustained penalty based on illegal order”.

upon. In this regard, we find that the additional ground raised by the assessee involves a legal issue concerning the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment proceedings. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the said ground are already available on record and no fresh investigation into facts is required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, even though such question was not raised before the lower authorities. However, the objection of the Ld. DR is that the additional ground pertains to the validity of the underlying assessment proceedings and cannot be raised in the present appeal arising out of the penalty proceedings. In this regard, we have gone through the order of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Valley Refractories Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), which is to the following effect:

the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), we reject the objection raised by the Ld. DR and admit the additional ground raised by the assessee for adjudication on merits. 14. Challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings on merits, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the copy of the notice placed at page no. 3 of the paper book and submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 04.04.2022, i.e., after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, being the assessment year 2018-19. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued the said notice after obtaining approval of the CIT. Inviting our attention to the provisions of section 151 of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that where a notice under section 148 is issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval of the authority specified under clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act is mandatory. Since, in the present case, the requisite approval was not obtained from the specified authority, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid in law and, consequently, the reassessment order as well as the penalty order founded thereon are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kilaru Venkata Satish Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 933/Hyd/2025, for the assessment year 2018-19, order dated 17.12.2025, wherein the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, W.P. No. 4061 of 2024, dated 25.09.2025, and the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd., wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed, held that where a notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval is required to be obtained from the authority specified under clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act and, in the absence of such approval, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment proceedings are invalid in law. 15. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. With regard to the validity of the reassessment proceedings, we have gone through the copy of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act placed at page no. 3 of the paper book, which is to the following effect:

consequential penalty levied under section 270A of the Act cannot survive independently. Accordingly, the penalty order dated 30.08.2024 passed under section 270A of the Act is also quashed. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the said penalty is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th September, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 4th September, 2026. Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Ahmed Altaf Sayeed, Plot No.9, Sai Krupa Colony, New Delhi Public School, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500032 2 Income Tax Officer (International Taxation )-2 Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500004 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad/Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order

Digitally signed by TIRUPATI TIRUPATI YAMINI YAMINI NAGA NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.09.04 MALLESWARI 11:53:44 +05'30'