SAVITRI STEELS AND REROLLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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 Nos.2178 & 2179/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Savitri Steels and Vs. Assistant Commissioner Rerollings Private Limited of Income Tax HYDERABAD Central Circle 3(1) PAN: AAMCS1692P HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri M.V. Prasad, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. SR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by M/s. Savitri Steels and Rerollings Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 08.10.2025 & 13.10.2025 respectively for the A.Y. 2013-14. Since issues raised by the assessee in these two appeals are inter-related, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

ITA No. 2178/Hyd/2025: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in facts and law while passing the order. 2. The Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in rejecting the plea of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have accorded a further opportunity of being heard before rejecting such plea in view of principles of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal filed against the addition made of Rs.3,85,00,000/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is not justified dismissing the appeal without considering the ground that reopening the assessment u/s.147 of the I.T. Act without proper jurisdiction and service. Therefore, the notice issued u/s.148 of the I.T. Act is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment made u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act is also to be treated as bad in law. 5. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have set aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer by virtue of his powers as contained in Section 251(1)(a) of the Act instead of dismissing the appeal since it was an exparte assessment made u/s.144 of the I.T. Act. 6. On the facts and circumstance of the case, Learned CIT(A) is not justified in not considering the fact that the appellant received the loan of 3,85,00,000/- from M/s. Gurukul Tradecom Pvt Ltd., through banking channels and same has been reflected in the Financial Statements. 7. Any other legal and factual ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the order of Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld.AO”) for the A.Y. 2013-14 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 25.03.2022. However, there was a delay of 389 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT

(A). The Ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons which prevented it from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Ld. AR further submitted that while filing the original return of income, the assessee had mentioned its e-mail ID as savitri.steels@gmail.com. However, at the time of filing the return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee had changed its e-mail ID and mentioned the new e-mail ID as maasavitri.finance@gmail.com. In support of the said contention, the assessee placed on record a copy of the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act reflecting the changed e-mail ID. It was further submitted that after changing the e-mail ID, the assessee had discontinued monitoring the old e-mail account. However, all notices issued during the assessment proceedings as well as the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO were communicated to the old e-mail ID, namely savitri.steels@gmail.com. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the notices issued by the Ld. AO and the order passed by him. The assessee also furnished screenshots and other supporting material demonstrating that the communications from the Department were sent to the old e- mail ID. It was submitted that only upon receiving telephonic communication from the Department regarding the

outstanding demand and the ex parte assessment order did the assessee become aware of the assessment proceedings and the order passed by the Ld. AO. Immediately thereafter, the assessee initiated steps for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which resulted in a delay of 389 days. According to the Ld. AR, the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention and therefore deserved to be condoned. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), opposed the condonation of delay and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has furnished a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the assessee had changed its e-mail ID while filing the return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act and was under the bona fide belief that future communications from the Department would be made to the revised e-mail ID. It is also not disputed that the assessee did not effectively participate in the assessment proceedings and the assessment was completed ex parte. We observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21) has reiterated that while considering applications for condonation of delay, a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach should be adopted so that substantial justice is advanced rather than defeated on technical considerations. The Courts have consistently held that when sufficient cause is shown and no mala fide intention is attributable to the litigant, the delay deserves to be condoned

in the interest of substantial justice. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 389 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the assessee could not effectively prosecute its case either before the Ld. AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the issues involved in the appeal have not been examined on merits after considering the evidences and explanations that the assessee now seeks to place on record. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the entire matter to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter decide the issues afresh on merits. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all documentary evidences, explanations and submissions in support of its claims. At the same time, the assessee is directed to extend full cooperation in the assessment proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order relating to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to decide the penalty proceedings afresh after finalization of the quantum proceedings pursuant to our directions in ITA No. 2178/Hyd/2025. The assessee shall be at liberty to file such documentary evidence and submissions as may be considered necessary in support of its case. The Ld. AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during the proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2179/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 15th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

S.No Addresses 1 M/s. SAVITRI STEELS AND REROLLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED FLAT NO.105 A DEVI MID TOWN BUILDING 1ST FLOOR ABOVE DWARKA HONDA SERVICE CENTRE, HYDERSHAKOTE HYDERABAD 500091 ,Telangana 2 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(1) Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT – CENTRAL, 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: 2026.07.15 12:21:42 +05'30'