ARUN KUMAR SOLANKI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(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.847, 849 & 850/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Arun Kumar Solanki Vs. Dy. CIT HYDERABAD Circle 6(1) PAN: AJRPS3685D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Sandhya राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 30/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These three appeals are filed by Shri Arun Kumar Solanki (“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)”) all dated 06.06.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. Since the issue involved in all these three appeals are inter-related and belongs to the same assessee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

2 ITA No.847/Hyd/2025: 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 258 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee’s only son suffered from severe health complications, including persistent headaches, nausea, impaired vision, irregular blood pressure and other related medical issues. It was submitted that the assessee’s son was undergoing treatment at Indian Healthcare and Diagnostic Centre, Hyderabad, and required constant care, supervision and monitoring at home. Owing to the serious medical condition of his son, the assessee had to suspend his normal professional and personal activities in order to attend to him and ensure timely administration of medicines and prescribed medical exercises. It was further submitted that the medical condition of the assessee’s son continued for a prolonged period and, when the situation became critical, he was admitted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. After conducting several medical investigations, the doctors diagnosed a blood clot in the brain, necessitating brain surgery. It was submitted that even after the surgery, the assessee’s son remained under continuous medical supervision and was finally discharged from the hospital on 20.03.2025. Thereafter also, post-surgical care and round-the-clock monitoring were required at home. In support of the above submissions, the assessee has placed on record copies of the relevant medical reports and hospital records. The Ld. AR further submitted that only after the health condition of his son stabilized and the assessee resumed his normal routine, he attended to his pending matters and noticed

3 the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, he immediately approached his Chartered Accountant and took necessary steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, a delay of 258 days occurred in filing the appeal. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the assessee but was caused due to circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has explained the delay by placing on record medical evidence demonstrating the serious health condition of his son, who was diagnosed with a blood clot in the brain and had undergone brain surgery. The explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be bona fide and supported by documentary evidence. In our considered view, the circumstances narrated by the assessee constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It is a settled principle of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 258

4 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

“1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law; 2) The learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.60,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of Sec.68 of the I.T.Act; 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the credits are all genuine and should have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer ; 4) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made of Rs.2,49,07,087/- on the ground that the sundry creditors are not proved ; 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that all the sundry creditors are the business creditors and represent the genuine transactions of the appellant and, therefore, the amount should have been deleted by the learned CIT (A); 6) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,85,000/- made by disallowance of the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the I.T.Act; 7) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the loss of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the appellant without considering the facts on record; 8) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”, 6. 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”) under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19. However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to comply with

5 the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that due to the serious medical issues faced by the assessee’s son, as explained in detail while seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, the assessee was unable to properly attend to the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. It was submitted that owing to the exceptional circumstances prevailing during the relevant period, the assessee could neither furnish the necessary documentary evidence before the Ld. AO nor effectively prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is now in a position to substantiate his claim by producing the relevant documentary evidence and supporting materials. Accordingly, it was prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings could not be effectively contested by the assessee due to the circumstances arising out of the serious medical condition of his son, which has already been accepted by us while condoning the delay in

6 filing the present appeal. We further find that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on account of non-compliance and the issues involved in the appeal have not been adjudicated on merits after considering the documentary evidence which the assessee now proposes to place on record. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. The Ld. AO shall provide adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall decide the issues afresh in accordance with law after considering the submissions and documentary evidence that may be furnished by the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all such documentary evidence, explanations and submissions as may be necessary in support of his claim before the Ld. AO. At the same time, the assessee is directed not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and to extend full cooperation in the assessment proceedings. In the event of failure on the part of the assessee to cooperate, the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 847/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 849 and 850/Hyd/2025: 11. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 259 days in filing both the present appeals before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for the delay in filing

7 these appeals are identical to the reasons explained in the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 847/Hyd/2025. We have already considered the said reasons in the quantum appeal and, after being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. Since the facts and circumstances relating to the delay in the present appeals are identical, our findings and observations recorded in ITA No. 847/Hyd/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals as well. Accordingly, following our findings in ITA No. 847/Hyd/2025, we condone the delay of 259 days in filing both the present appeals and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 12. Coming to the merits of the appeals, we find that both the appeals arise from penalty orders which are consequential and dependent upon the outcome of the quantum proceedings involved in ITA No. 847/Hyd/2025. We have already set aside the quantum appeal in ITA No. 845/Hyd/2025 to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the very foundation of the impugned penalty orders is the quantum addition which has been restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings cannot survive independently at this stage. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned penalty orders and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO shall adjudicate the penalty proceedings afresh, in accordance with law, after final adjudication of the quantum proceedings and after providing

8 reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all contentions available under law in the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, both the appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 8th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Arun Kumar Solanki, 6-3-1109/5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 6(1) IT Towers, Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT , 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: 2026.07.08 16:59:51 +05'30'