What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee firm was barred by limitation due to the inordinate delay of 825 days. No application for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee.

The assessee firm engaged in civil sub-contracts filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the AO's addition for suppressed work-in-progress. The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 825 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation due to a substantial delay for which no condonation application was filed.

R S R Infra, Kurnool vs ACIT | s.143(3) | ITAT Hyderabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 23/06/2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 24/12/2018. The assessee firm has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

1) The appellant submits that the order of the AO is erroneous, both on facts and in law. The appellant submits that the AO erred in estimating the WIP purely from the numbers and statements available on record. The appellant submits that such estimation of WIP is contrary to accounting rules. The appellant submits that the AO ought to have obtained a copy of account from Srinivasa Construction Corporation Private Limited before concluding based on the bank statements alone that the amounts formed the turnovers of the appellant. The appellant submits that the AO should have affordable proper opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the profits and working and the gross receipts. The appellant submits that the AO acted in haste in concluding that the appellant has claimed the expenditure in an earlier year. The appellant prays that an opportunity be given to explain the factual positions. 2) The appellant prays that the AO while estimating the WIP in the aforementioned manner, ignored its effect on profit of the business. In other words the AO estimated the WIP as much as 46.50 percent of the gross turnover which is contrary to the facts of the case and also never seen in the industry. The appellant prays to submit that on the factor alone the estimate should be struck down as arbitrary. On the basis of the above grounds and any further grounds that may be permitted to be urged during the appellate proceedings the appellant prays that (a) an opportunity be given to furnish complete particulars and (b) the addition of Rs.1,11,78,762/- be deleted.”

Succinctly stated, the assessee firm, which is engaged in the business of executing civil sub-contracts, had e-filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 on 17/10/2016, declaring an income of Rs.18,43,010/-. Subsequently, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO, vide his order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 24/12/2018, determined the income of the assessee firm after making an addition of Rs.1,11,78,762/- on account of suppressed work-in-progress not disclosed by the assessee firm in its profit and loss account.

Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success.

The assessee firm, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.

As the assessee appellant, despite having been put to notice about the hearing of the appeal, has neither put up an appearance nor filed any application for adjournment, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose of the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 after hearing the respondent revenue.

Shri K Prasad, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr. DR”), at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that though the present appeal involves a delay of 825 days, no application seeking condonation of the delay has been filed by the assessee firm/appellant.

We have perused the record and find the aforesaid claim of the Ld. Sr-DR in order. As is discernible from the record, the assessee firm was put on notice regarding the aforesaid delay of 825 days in filing the appeal, vide letter dated 09/02/2026 issued by the Registry of the Tribunal, and was called upon to rectify the same within a period of 10 days. However, we find that despite the lapse of a substantial period, the assessee firm had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding the aforesaid delay of 825 days involved in filing the present appeal before us. We thus, considering that the appeal filed by the assessee firm/appellant involves an inordinate delay of 825 days, for which no application seeking condonation of the same has been filed before us, the said appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm is dismissed as barred by limitation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (मधुसूदन साविडया) (रवीश सूद) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (RAVISH SOOD) लेखासद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियकसद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad Dated: 22nd July, 2026. *OKK/SPS Copy to: R S R INFRA, 81-289-1-3B, UPPALAPADU B.O, 1 BYRAPURAM, KURNOOL-518002, ANDHRA PRADESH ACIT, CIRCLE-1, 2 O/O ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL-, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT, KURNOOL. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY KAMALA KUMAR Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.07.23 12:27:06 +05'30' ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD

R S R INFRA,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments