RUDVIN CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

आदेश / O R D E R PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, AM:

This appeal is filed by M/s. Rudvin Corporation India Private

Limited. (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 27.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-

17.

1) Ground1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that on couple of occasions the Appellant has sought time to file submissions. 2) Ground2. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,31,24,000 as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3) Ground3. The authorities below failed to appreciate that for the year under consideration there were no business activity conducted by the Appellant and that the credits in the bank accounts are the amounts received as unsecured loans obtained to repay the interest on bank loans. 4) Ground4. The authorities below failed to appreciate the information filed in proper perspective. 5) Ground5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.

before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the

Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with sections

144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 29.03.2022.

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply with the

notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

the appeal of the assessee ex parte for non-prosecution.

before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”)

submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte

without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. It was submitted

that though adjournments were sought by the assessee from time to

time, no effective opportunity was ultimately granted before passing the

impugned order. Consequently, the assessee could not place the relevant :: 3 :: documentary evidence and written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) in

support of its case. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that, in the interest of

justice, one final opportunity may be granted to the assessee to prosecute

its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the matter may be

restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

strongly opposed the submissions of the assessee and submitted that

sufficient opportunities had already been granted by the Ld. CIT(A).

Inviting our attention to para no. 6.1 of the impugned order, the Ld. DR

submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had initially issued notice dated

12.07.2022, to which the assessee did not respond. Thereafter, another

notice dated 24.01.2024 was issued by the Ld. CIT(A), against which the

assessee sought adjournment on 31.01.2024. However, even after

obtaining the adjournment, the assessee failed to file any written

submissions or documentary evidence. The Ld. DR further submitted that

the Ld. CIT(A) again issued another notice dated 19.12.2024, against

which the assessee once again sought adjournment on 26.06.2025. Even

thereafter, no submissions were filed by the assessee till the passing of

the impugned order on 27.11.2025. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted

that the assessee, being a private limited company, was fully aware of the

appellate proceedings but consciously chose not to prosecute its appeal.

Therefore, according to the Ld. DR, no further opportunity deserves to be

granted to the assessee.

:: 4 :: 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material

available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the impugned order has

been passed ex parte on account of non-compliance by the assessee

during the appellate proceedings. We also find from the order of the Ld.

CIT(A) that several opportunities were granted to the assessee and, on

more than one occasion, the assessee sought adjournments but

thereafter failed to file any submissions. We find merit in the submissions

of the Ld. DR that the assessee, being a private limited company, is

expected to diligently prosecute its appeal before the appellate

authorities. The repeated non-compliance on the part of the assessee

cannot be appreciated and deserves to be deprecated. At the same time,

it is a settled principle that justice should not only be done but should also

appear to have been done. The right of appeal is a valuable statutory

right and, as far as possible, disputes should be adjudicated on merits

rather than dismissed for technical or procedural defaults. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the present case, and in order to advance

substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one final opportunity

to the assessee to prosecute its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However,

considering the repeated defaults committed by the assessee before the

Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be

saddled with costs so that unnecessary adjournments and casual

approach in appellate proceedings are discouraged. Accordingly, we

impose a cost of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) upon the :: 5 :: assessee which shall be deposited with the Prime Minister’s National

Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

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 in accordance with law after providing adequate

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at

liberty to file all such documentary evidence and submissions as may be

advised in support of its case. The assessee is, however, directed to fully

cooperate with the appellate proceedings, shall not seek any unnecessary

adjournment and shall promptly comply with all notices issued by the Ld.

CIT(A.), so as to facilitate expeditious disposal of the appeal.

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (रिवश सूद) (मधुसूदन साविडया) (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 24th July, 2026. TLN

आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:

िनधा�रती/The 1 : Rudvin Corporation India Private Limited, 102, Supreme Residency, 2-2-1144/3/2, New Assessee Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500044, Telangana राज�/ The Revenue 2 : ITO, Ward-3(1) O/O ITO, Ward-3(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur Hyderabad-500084, Telangana 3 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT Hyderabad. 4 गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file 5

आदेशानुसार / 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: 2026.07.24 15:25:02 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad