234 TYRE WORLD LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

आदेश / ORDER

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

These three appeals by the Assessee are directed against three separate Orders of the Addl/JCIT(A), Chennai, all dated 28.11.2025 arising from the Order passed u/sec.154 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 by the CPC for the assessment years 2021-2022 to 2023-2024, respectively.

3 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 before the Tribunal. Accordingly, by taking a lenient view and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 07 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. These appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

ITA.No.377/Hyd./2026 – A.Y. 2021-2022:

“The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing 1) the appeal in limine on the ground of delay, without appreciating that the appellant had shown sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay and that the powers of appellate authorities are required to be exercised to advance substantial justice.

2) The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not adjudicating the grounds raised on merits and in passing an order which is non-speaking, mechanical and violative of the principles of natural justice.

3) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the competent authority had approved the condonation of delay in e- verification on 08.09.2022, and once such condonation is granted, the return of income relates back to the original date of filing i.e. 31.10.2021, which was within the due date under section 139(1).

4 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026

4) The authorities below erred in law in denying the carry forward of business loss under section 72 read with section 80 of the Act, despite the return of income having been filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1), as validated by the condonation of delay.

5) The authorities below erred in treating the revised return filed under section 139(5) as a belated return and in denying consequential benefits, without appreciating that a revised return substitutes the original return and inherits its character.

6) The denial of carry forward of loss is bad in law as it is based on mechanical/system-driven processing by CPC, ignoring the binding effect of the condonation order and settled legal principles.

7) The authorities below erred in taking inconsistent stands, particularly in view of the fact that the carry forward of loss was initially allowed for AY 2022-23 and subsequently withdrawn by a suo motu rectification, thereby causing grave prejudice to the appellant.

8) The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant an effective adjudication of its case on merits.

9) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter OR withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at OR before the time of hearing

5 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 10) Relief prayed: The appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) be condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside, and the carry forward of loss for AY 2021-22 be directed to be allowed, along with such other and consequential reliefs as the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit.” 5. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits but the same is dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. He has pointed out that there is a delay of 497 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2021-2022. The assessee explained the cause of delay that the return of income was filed by the assessee originally u/sec.139(1) of the Act on 31.12.2021 and thereafter, revised return u/sec.139(5) of the Act was filed on 17.01.2022 reducing business loss which was claimed as carry forward and that both the returns were filed within the extended due dates. The CPC processed the return u/sec.143(1) of the Act on 29.07.2022 and disallowed the claim of carry forward business loss and also levied late fee u/sec.234F of the Act. The learned Authorised

6 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 Representative of the Assessee has pointed out that though the assessee filed original return as well as revised return within the due dates, but e-verification was not carried out within the time and therefore, the CPC has disallowed the claim of carry forward of losses. Immediately, the assessee filed a petition u/sec.154 of the Act for rectification of the mistake on 01.08.2022 which was also rejected by the CPC on the same date. Thereafter, the assessee raised these grievances on e-file portal seeking allowance of carry forward losses as well as condonation of delay in e-verification of the original return of income dated 31.12.2021. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has then pointed out that the Competent Authority has condoned the delay in e-filing of the original return of income vide order dated 08.09.2022. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2022-2023 on 19.10.2022 claiming set off of the business income against the carry forward losses of the assessment year 2021-2022. Since the carry forward losses were not allowed by the CPC for the assessment year 2021- 2022 therefore, the claim of set-off of the business income

7 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 against the losses were also denied by the CPC while processing the return of income for the assessment year 2022-2023 on 14.12.2022. Similarly, the CPC also rejected the claim of setting off of the business income against the brought forward losses from the assessment year 2021-2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed the appeals before the learned CIT(A) on 10.01.2024 against the Order passed u/sec.154 dated 01.08.2022 for the assessment year 2021-2022.

5.1. For the assessment year 2023-2024 initially the CPC allowed the carry forward loss and granting refund accepting the same loss for the second consecutive year however, the CPC then passed the order u/sec.154 and rejected the said claim of carry forward and setting off of the losses. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that since the assessee was seeking the successive grievance on the e-filing portal against the rejection of the claim and therefore, there was a delay in filing the appeal for the assessment year 2021-2022 before the learned CIT(A) which was declined by the learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order. The learned Authorised

8 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 Representative of the Assessee has further submitted that the delay in e-verification of the original return of income filed for the assessment year 2021-2022 was finally condoned by the Competent Authority vide order dated 08.09.2022 then the claim of the assessee ought to have been allowed by the CPC instead of rejecting the petition filed by the assessee u/sec.154 of the Act as well as allowing the grievance of the assessee as raised on the e-filing portal. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the facts and circumstances that the assessee was pursuing the remedy before the CPC as well as through e-filing portal by raising the grievance. He has thus prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2021-2022 be condoned.

9 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 filed before the learned CIT(A). Thus, the learned CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the condonation of delay when assessee failed to explain the sufficient cause for inordinate delay of 497 days. He has relied upon the Order of the learned CIT(A).

10 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 original return was not e-verified within the time limit, the CPC denied the claim of the assessee. The assessee filed a petition u/sec.154 on 01.08.2022 which was also rejected by the CPC on the same date. The assessee then raised the grievance through e-filing portal and also sought condonation of delay in e-verification of the original return of income which was condoned by the Competent Authority vide order dated 08.09.2022 placed at page no.68 of the paper book as under:

11 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026

7.1. Thus, once the delay is condoned by the Competent Authority for e-verification of the ITR then, the very ground/basis for rejecting the claim of carry forward losses by the CPC is removed. However, since the assessee sought the remedy by filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the same was dismissed on the ground of delay. The subsequent two appeals of the assessee are also arise from the denial of claim of set off of the business income against the carry forward losses and as such are consequential to the denial of claim for the assessment year 2021-2022. Hence, having considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the claim of the assessee denied by the CPC on technical ground of delay in e-verification of the return of

12 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 income we take a lenient view in this matter by considering the fact that the assessee would be remediless if the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was not condoned for the assessment year 2021-2022 and it will have a direct bearing on the claim of the assessee of set-off of the business income of the subsequent years against the brought forward losses from the assessment year 2021-2022. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 497 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) subject to cost of Rs.5000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to the ITAT Tax Bar Association, Hyderabad within a period of one month from the date of this Order.

7.2. Since the learned CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2021-2022 on merits but the same was dismissed in limine due to barred by limitation and we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) therefore, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the appeal on merits by considering the fact that the delay

13 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 in e-verification of the original return of income has been condoned by the Competent Authority. Needless to say, the assessee be given proper opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order.

ITA.Nos.378 & 379/Hyd./2026 – A.Y. - 2022-2023 & 2023-2024:

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing 1) the appeal on the ground of delay in filing revised return beyond the due date u/s 139(1)

2) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that for the purpose of carry forward of loss u/s sec 80 the sole criteria is filing original return of income u/s 139(1). In the instant case the original return of income was filed on 19/10/2022 i.e within the due date prescribed under income tax act (31/10/2022).

3) The learned CIT(A) erred in not recognizing the fact that revised return of income is only a correction of original return and does not replace the original return for claiming statutory allowances

14 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026

4) The learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the revised return of income u/s 139(5) having filed within due date carry forward of loss u/s 80 is allowed as per the citation in sec 139(3).

5) The authorities below erred in treating the revised return filed under section 139(5) as a belated return and in denying consequential benefits, without appreciating that a revised return substitutes the original return and inherits its character

6) The authorities below erred in taking inconsistent stands, particularly in view of the fact that the carry forward of loss was initially allowed for AY 2022-23 and subsequently withdrawn by a suo moto rectification, thereby causing grave prejudice to the appellant

7) The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant an effective adjudication of its case on merits

8) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter OR withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at OR before the time of hearing

9) Relief prayed: The appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) be condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside, and the carry forward of loss for AY 2021-22 be directed to be allowed, along with such other and consequential reliefs as the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit.”

15 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2023-2024:

16 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 7. The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law as it violates the principles of natural justice by denying the appellant an effective adjudication of its case on merits.

Relief prayed: The appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) be condoned, the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside, and the carry forward of loss for AY 2021-22 be directed to be allowed, along with such other and consequential reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”

17 ITA.Nos.377 to 379/Hyd./2026 outcome of the set aside the matter for the assessment year 2021-2022. We Order accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 03rd day of July, 2026 VBP Copy to: 234 TYRE WORLD LLP, PLOT NO 2 SURVEY NUMBER 21 24, HIGH TENSION 1 ROAD,NEAR MALAKACHER HYDERABAD RANGAREDDI TG, MADHAPUR B.O, SHAIKPET, HYDERABAD - 500 081,TELANGANA 2 ITO, WARD-11(1), O/O ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD-, TELANGANA 3 THE Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE VADREVU Digitally signed TRUE COPY by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.07.03 I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD RAO 11:20:49 +05'30'