SRI SAI AGRO INDUSTRIES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -2, KARIMNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2483/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 133 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to this delay without considering the merits. The assessee explained the delay was due to discontinuation of business and lack of knowledge of tax procedures by the partners.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the appeal should be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 08/07/2026

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 No.2483/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Sri Sai Agro Vs. Income Tax Officer Industries Ward 2 Hyderabad Karimnagar PAN: ABLFS8355G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S.K. Gupta राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 08/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by M/s. Sri Sai Agro Industries (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 13.10.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the assessment order is not sustainable on facts or in law.

2.

The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay considering the reasons submitted for condonation of delay. 3. In the facts and circumstance of the case the respected CIT(A) ought to have considered that the additions made are justifiable and decided the case on merits. 4. The assessee may be permitted to add, delete, amend or modify any ground of appeal at the time of hearing with the leave of the Honourable ITAT.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) for Assessment Year 2017-18 under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 30.01.2025. However, there was a delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that since the year 2021, the assessee-firm had discontinued its entire business activities and there were no employees available to look after its accounts and tax compliances. It was further submitted that the partners of the firm are not well educated and are not conversant with the functioning of the Income Tax portal and other procedural requirements. Accordingly, due to these circumstances, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period before the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that there was neither any deliberate intention

nor any mala fide motive on the part of the assessee in causing the delay and, therefore, the delay deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the reasons explained by the assessee in the petition supported by the affidavit and keeping in view the fact that there is no material on record to suggest that the delay was intentional or deliberate, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Further, we find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, the assessee did not had any opportunity to prosecute his case on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in our considered view, the issues involved in the appeal require fresh examination. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A). In case the assessee fails to

cooperate, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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 SRI SAI AGRO INDUSTRIES 6-206 SRI DURGA ESTATES NEAR SUCHITRA VENNELAGADDA JEEDIMETLA HYDERABAD 500055 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-2,C4JH 4 WM Mukhrampura, Karimnagar 505001 3 Pr. CIT –, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order TUMMALACHARLA Digitally signed by 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 12:19:10 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →