RAVINDER REDDY MUNUGALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 327/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 August 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when an appellate authority decides an appeal on merits after refusing to condone the delay, it implies condonation of delay. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal was decided ex parte without adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The CIT(A) declined to condone the delay but proceeded to decide the appeal on merits, dismissing it. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was impliedly condoned by deciding the appeal on merits. Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 04/08/2026

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. 327/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ravinder Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Munugala, HYDERABAD Ward 8 (1) PAN: AIRPR2907C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA C Maheshwar Reddy राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ravinder Reddy Munugala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 12.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred CIT(A),NFAC erred on facts and in law while dismissing the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in appreciating the facts of the case of the appellant.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in upholding the additions Rs.2,91,13,203/- u/s. 69A of the act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) out to have observed that cash deposits were out of the advances received from customers and the same cannot be treated as unexplained. 5. The Appellant craves to add/leave/alter/modify any other ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 19.11.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. However, there was a delay of about 27 months in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Simultaneously, the Ld. CIT(A) also proceeded to adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits as well.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”), inviting our attention to para no. 1.8 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, he nevertheless proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. According to the Ld. AR, once the appellate authority enters into the merits of the controversy, it amounts to an implied condonation of delay. In support of the above proposition, reliance was placed on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Nafees Sultana Vs. ITO, ITA No. 642/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15, order dated 28.04.2025.

5.

The Ld. AR further submitted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was decided ex parte without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim by filing relevant documentary evidence and written submissions. It was also submitted that since the assessment itself had been completed ex parte under section 144 of the Act, the matter may be restored directly to the file of the Ld. AO instead of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and opposed the request for restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the case law relied upon. We find considerable force in the submissions of the Ld. AR. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that although the Ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal was barred by limitation and declined to condone the delay, he nevertheless proceeded to examine and adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. We have also gone through para nos. 11 and 12 of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Nafees Sultana Vs. ITO (Supra), which is to the following effect:

8.

On a perusal of the above, we find that under identical circumstances, this Tribunal, relying upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 560 (Mad.), held that where the appellate authority does not stop with the order refusing to condone the delay but proceeds to consider the appeal on merits, it is to be inferred that the delay stood impliedly condoned. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, we hold that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be treated as condoned. 9. Having held so, we further notice that the appeal was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) ex parte without providing an effective opportunity to the assessee to place the necessary documentary evidence and submissions in support of his case. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be best served if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering such evidence and submissions as may be filed in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A). In case of failure on the part of the assessee to cooperate, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 7th August, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Ravinder Reddy Munugala, c/o B Narsing Rao & Co.LLP, Plot No.554, Road No.92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500096 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-8(1), Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.08.07 12:39:52 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →