NEHEMIAH REINFORCED SOIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1018/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 August 2026AY 2018-201913 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 407 days, citing post-Covid operational closures and lack of personnel. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution due to non-response to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution requires reconsideration on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ�, हैदराबाद INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD SMC-BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT

ITA 1018/HYD/2025 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-2019 NEHEMIAH REINFORCED SOIL INDIA PRIVATE DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1) LIMITED, 402, IV FLOOR, O/O DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1) PLOT NO 1717, OWNERS PRIDE ROAD NO. 12, HYDERABAD-, Vs. BANJARA HILLS, TELANGANA HYDERABAD-500033, TELANGANA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AADCN5560C Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �वारा/Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, C.A represented by: ��यथ� �वारा/Respondent Shri B Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR represented by: सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of conclusion 28.07.2026 of hearing: घोषणा क� तार�ख / Date of 05.08.2026 pronouncement:

2 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 आदेश / ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 08.02.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-2019.

2.

At the outset, there is a delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee company. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that after the Covid-2019 pandemic the operations of the assessee company were closed and company also removed all its employees and therefore, there was nobody to look after the day-to-day affairs of the assessee company. The assessee was dependent on the previous Counsel for information who has not informed the assessee about the status of the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Only after receipt of penalty order passed u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961

3 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 on 21.03.2025, the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and took steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay of 407 days in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. He has thus pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be admitted for adjudication on merits. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained a ‘reasonable cause’ for the inordinate delay of 407 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. This is a clear case of gross negligence on the part of the assessee as the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the conduct of the assessee is

4 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 nothing but negligence on the part of the assessee towards tax matters.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application as under:

5 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025

6 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025

4.1. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal are explained by the assessee as post Covid 2019 pandemic period the operations of the assessee are closed and all the employees were removed. Thus, it is stated that there was nobody to look after the day-to-day affairs of the assessee company. This case pertains to the assessment year 2018- 2019 and therefore, so far as the tax liability is concerned, even if the assessee company closed its operations, it cannot

7 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 ignore the prosecution of the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and further course of action if any required after the order of the learned CIT(A). However, since the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution therefore, if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the assessee would be remediless and hence, by taking a lenient view the delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is condoned subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- [Rs. Ten Thousand Only] to be paid to ITAT Tax Bar Association, Hyderabad, within a period of one month from the date of this order.

5.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

8 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025

6.

I have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as learned DR and carefully perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has given the details of the notices issued to the assessee in Para no.5 as under: “5. Notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued to the appellant on 23.05.2022, 31.08.2023, 10.01.2024, 18.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 providing multiple opportunities for furnishing of submissions (online) in support of each of the Grounds of appeal filed by 30.05.2022, 07.09.2023, 17.01.2024, 25.01.2024 and 05.02.2024 respectively. All the hearing notices were sent on the

9 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 e-mail address provided for communication, in item 17 of Form 35 which is captured below:”

6.1. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) has also issued notice giving final opportunity to the assessee as per notice dated 29.01.2024. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee in response to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) nor any reply was filed, therefore, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pointed out that the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance on account of contribution to PF/ superannuation fund by applying Rule-87 of I.T. Rules, 1962. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has

10 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 submitted that the Assessing Officer has misconceived the facts that this amount of Rs.44,49,042/- debited in the P & L A/c is part of the bills raised by the assessee to M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited who is responsible to deduct the PF and deposit the same to the PF account and therefore, since this is part of the gross amount of bill and shown as income in the P & L A/c therefore, the contribution towards PF @ 2% on the full and final bill amount is debited to the P & L A/c. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has misunderstood the facts and wrongly applied Rule 87 of I.T. Rules, 1962 for making the disallowance of this amount. He has referred to the summary of the full and final bill and submitted that the Assessing Officer has observed in the assessment order that the said figure is not reflected in the ledger whereas this is duly part of the ledger account and assessee furnished the confirmation from M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited that the said amount is part of the full and final bill. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pleaded that when the learned CIT(A) has

11 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 not decided the issue on merits while passing the ex-parte order and Assessing Officer has also not considered the correct facts on this issue, the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

7.

On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.

8.

I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the Orders of the authorities below. It is noted that the Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of the claim and applied Rule-87 of I.T. Rules, 1962 for making the disallowance of Rs.44,49,042/- on account of PF contribution. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has filed copy of the summary of full and final bill which is also confirmed by the other party viz., M/s. IJM (India) Infrastructure Limited to whom the assessee raised the bill including the amount of PF contribution which was to be paid by the said party directly to the PF account. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits but it was dismissed summarily and the Assessing

12 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 Officer has also made an observation that this amount is not reflected in the ledger account, this issue requires a proper verification and examination in light of the relevant facts and record to be produced by the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026.

Sd/- VIJAY PAL RAO VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 05th day of August, 2026 VBP

13 ITA.No.1018/Hyd./2025 Copy to: NEHEMIAH REINFORCED SOIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 402, IV FLOOR, PLOT NO 1717, OWNERS 1 PRIDE ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500033, TELANGANA 2 DCIT., CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD-, TELANGANA 3 THE PR. CIT, HYDERABAD. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD SMC-BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE VADREV TRUE COPY Digitally signed by VADREVU U PRASADA RAO Date: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / PRASAD I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD 2026.08.05 10:51:18 A RAO +05'30'

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →