INFINIO TECHSOLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 593/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 July 20265 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of non-filing of affidavits for condonation of delay. Since affidavits were now filed and to provide an effective opportunity, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) against orders under section 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act. The appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing and the absence of supporting affidavits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, and whether the orders passed by the AO were without jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 200A,Section 234E,Section 220(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 24.07.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals are filed by M/s. Infinio Techsole (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

(“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the

Learned Addl/JCIT(A), Raipur (“Ld. Addl/JCIT”) all dated 11.12.2025 for the

A.Y. 2013-14 (Quarter 2 to 4). Since identical facts and issues are involved

in all the three appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed

of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

ITA Nos.593 to 595/Hyd/2026 INFINIO TECHSOLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. :: 2 ::

2.

For the sake of brevity, we are only reproducing the grounds of

appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.593/Hyd/2026:

Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 11.12.2025 dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act is without jurisdiction and hence invalid and void ab initio.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order in violation of principles of natural Justice.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging late filing fees of Rs. 30,824/- u/s. 234E of the Act on account of delay in furnishing of TDS return.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in charging interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act amounting to Rs. 25,256/- on account of non-payment of late filing fee u/s. 234E of the Act.

6.

The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.

3.

The brief facts in all these three appeals are that the assessee had

filed appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT against three separate orders passed

by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 154 read with

section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), all dated 04.08.2023,

relating to processing of quarterly TDS statements in Form No. 26Q for

Quarters 2 to 4 of the financial year relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14.

However, there was a delay in filing all the three appeals before the Ld.

Addl/JCIT. The Ld. Addl/JCIT, noticing that the assessee had not filed any

affidavit in support of the petition seeking condonation of delay, declined

ITA Nos.593 to 595/Hyd/2026 INFINIO TECHSOLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. :: 3 :: to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed all the three appeals in

limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

4.

Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. Addl/JCIT, the assessee is in

appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld.

AR”) submitted that the Ld. Addl/JCIT dismissed the appeals solely on the

ground that the assessee had not filed affidavits in support of the petitions

seeking condonation of delay before him. He submitted that the assessee

has now filed duly sworn affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay in

filing the appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT in all the three cases. It was

therefore contended that, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in

filing these appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT may be condoned and the

appeals of the assessee may be adjudicated on merits.

5.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”)

relied upon the orders of the Ld. Addl/JCIT.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material

available on record. It is an admitted position that the Ld. Addl/JCIT

dismissed all the three appeals only on the ground that the assessee had

failed to file affidavits in support of the petitions seeking condonation of

delay. Before us, the assessee has placed on record affidavits explaining

the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. Addl/JCIT in

all the three cases. Considering the fact that the affidavits explaining the

delay are now available on record and in order to provide the assessee with

ITA Nos.593 to 595/Hyd/2026 INFINIO TECHSOLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. :: 4 :: an effective opportunity of pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal, we

deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the

file of the Ld. Addl/JCIT. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders of

the Ld. Addl/JCIT in all the three appeals and restore the matters to his file

with a direction to first consider the affidavits filed by the assessee and

adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay in accordance with

law. In the event the delay is condoned, the Ld. Addl/JCIT shall proceed to

adjudicate the appeals on merits by passing a speaking order in accordance

with law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the

assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the

appellate proceedings and file all necessary documents as may be called

for by the Ld. Addl/JCIT.

7.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (रिवश सूद) (मधुसूदन साविडया) (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) �ाियक सद� /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 24th July, 2026. TLN

ITA Nos.593 to 595/Hyd/2026 INFINIO TECHSOLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. :: 5 ::

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

िनधा�रती/The 1 : INFINIO TECHSOLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 503 5TH FLOOR, VASANTH LOTUS, Assessee GACHIBOWLI S.O, GACHIBOWLI,, HYDERABAD-500032, TELANGANA राज�/ The Revenue 2 : ITO, WARD-2(1) SIGNATURE TOWERS, SY.NO. (P) OF KONDAPUR, SY. (P) OF KOTHAGUDA, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDENS, SERLINGAMPALLY (M), R.R. DISTRICT, 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 15:29:00 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →