KPMS JAIN SCHOOL PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(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 No. 393/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2020-21) KPMS Jain School Private Vs. Dy. CIT Limited, Hyderabad Circle 2(1) PAN: AACCK9043Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: N O N E राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 29/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by KPMS Jain School Private Limited (“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 04.10.2025 for the A.Y. 2020-21. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 40 2. days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay. In the condonation petition, it has been submitted that the assessee is a

company having two directors who are real brothers. During the relevant period, a family dispute arose between the two directors and they were not on speaking terms with each other. Due to the said internal dispute, there was a complete lack of coordination in handling the affairs of the company, including legal and taxation matters. It was submitted that on account of such circumstances, the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The assessee, therefore, prayed for condonation of the delay of 40 days. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, considering the averments made in the condonation petition, we proceed to dispose of the application on the basis of the material available on record. 2.1 The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 2.2 We have considered the contents of the condonation petition and the submissions of the Ld. DR. We find that the delay involved is only 40 days and the reasons explained by the assessee for such delay cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or lacking in bona fides. It is a settled principle of law that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering an application for condonation of delay where the explanation furnished does not indicate any deliberate negligence, mala fide intention, or dilatory tactics on the part of the litigant. Considering

the reasons stated in the condonation petition, the relatively short period of delay involved, and there being no serious objection from the Revenue, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance by the assessee . Accordingly, the assessee could not prosecute their appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) with necessary documentary evidence and relevant submissions. Considering the facts of the present case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 3rd July, 2026. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

S.No Addresses 1 KPMS Jain School Private Ltd, Plot No.73, Jeera, Secunderabad 500003 2 Dy.CIT, Circle 2(1) ITO Signature Towers, Kondapur,. Hyderabad 500084 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: 2026.07.03 11:58:47 +05'30'