SRI ANA BHASKARA AGRO FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, there is a delay of 313 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, Advocate, referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A)/NFAC, dated 10.03.2025, was taken to have been received on the same day and the appeal against the said order was required to be filed on or before 31.05.2025. However, the appeal came to be filed on 09.04.2026, resulting in a delay of 313 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

It was further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither wilful nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC had been filed on 15.12.2022 and, after about two and a half years, the learned CIT(A)/NFAC issued a notice dated 23.02.2025 calling upon the assessee to substantiate the reasons for delay. It was submitted that, as there were no operations in the company and no administrative staff, the said notice remained unattended and the appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that there was no response. It was further submitted that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only in the last week of March, 2026, when the demand was pursued by the office of the learned A.O. and, immediately thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal on 09.04.2026. It was also submitted that the assessee had not opted for e-mail correspondence in Form No.35 and had specifically furnished the postal address for correspondence. Therefore, it was submitted that the delay had occurred due to bona fide reasons and not on account of any deliberate negligence or mala fide intention. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay of

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri K. Prasad, on the other hand, opposed the condonation petition filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period and, therefore, the delay may not be condoned. However, he fairly submitted that the issue may be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the facts and material available on record.

We have heard both the parties, perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 313 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be genuine and bona fide and come under 'sufficient cause'. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and directed that a lenient approach should be followed to avoid dismissal of meritorious cases on technical grounds. Going by the principles laid down in Mst. Katiji (supra), and also considering the submissions of the

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a private limited company, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016- 17 on 13.02.2017 declaring total income of Rs.43,510/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 12.12.2018 determining the total income at Rs.43,510/-.

Subsequently, the learned PCIT, Hyderabad-1, passed an order u/s 263 of the Act on 24.03.2021. The learned PCIT observed that the A.O. had failed to examine the sources of the unsecured loans raised during the relevant previous year and had failed to verify the information regarding the loan balance of Rs.1.75 crores. The learned PCIT further noted that the unsecured loans received during the year had not been examined by making necessary enquiries or verification. Accordingly, the learned PCIT held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

Aggrieved with the order of the A.O. passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The Form No.35 filed by the assessee disclosed a delay of 239 days in filing the appeal. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, fresh assessment proceedings were initiated and the assessee furnished the details of unsecured loans, bank statements, confirmations, PAN details and relevant ITRs. It was submitted that the employee looking after the income-tax matters had resigned w.e.f. 01.11.2021 without informing the management about the status of the proceedings. The said employee came to the office on 09.12.2022 and informed the management about the assessment and penalty orders and handed over copies of the same. Thereafter, the assessee approached its tax consultant and

The learned CIT(A), after considering the affidavit and submissions of the assessee, observed that the assessee had not furnished cogent and tenable evidence in support of the reasons for delay, despite being given an opportunity. The learned CIT(A) also questioned the explanation regarding the resignation of the employee and his handing over the assessment and penalty orders on 09.12.2022. The learned CIT(A) held that the explanation did not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay of 239 days and declined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non-maintainable without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits.

Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri A.V. Raghu Ram, Advocate, submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in ‘limine’ on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that the assessee had explained the reasons for the

The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A), having dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, did not adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee on merits. He submitted that the assessee has a case on merits in respect of the additions made u/s 68 of the Act towards unsecured loans and that the relevant details and evidences were furnished during the assessment proceedings. He accordingly submitted that, in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri K. Prasad, on the other hand, supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for the delay with cogent evidence despite being afforded an opportunity. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be upheld.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in ‘limine’ on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. The assessee has explained the reasons for the delay and has also filed an affidavit in support of its explanation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain its case on merits before the learned CIT(A), and therefore, we condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A).

Since the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish all necessary details and evidences in support of its case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1259/Hyd/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

The present appeal filed by the assessee relates to the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.46,43,300/- on the additions made u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, towards unsecured loans, in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17.

Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The Form No.35 filed by the assessee disclosed a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. The

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

This appeal was also filed with a delay of 313 days before the Tribunal. For the similar reasons as stated in ITA No.1259/Hyd/2026, we condone the delay of 313 days in filing the present appeal, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The said cost shall be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days from the date of this order and the assessee shall furnish proof of the payment to the Registry.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that, in ITA No.1259/Hyd/2026, we have set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the quantum appeal to

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the penalty appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after deciding the quantum appeal and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1260/Hyd/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum-up, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.