JANARDHAN REDDY CHALLAGONDA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ 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.487 & 488/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Janardhan Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Challagonda, Ward 4(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad PAN: AGIPC4801B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Sandhya राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 18/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/08/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by Shri Janardhan Reddy Challagonda (“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)”) both dated 30.12.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are inter-related, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

2 ITA No. 487/Hyd/2026: 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“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 dismissing the appeal in limini without condoning the delay; 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that in the Demand Notice there is no demand and, therefore, there is always a reason for the appellant not to file an appeal; 4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the other reasons submitted before him requesting for condonation of delay and condoned the delay in filing the appeal; 5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the facts on record and decided the grounds of appeal on merits without dismissing the appeal in limini; 6) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing; 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 Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2015-16 under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 02.01.2024. However, there was a delay of 571 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation.

3 delay, has recorded the fact that the assessee is a trust, whereas the assessee is not a trust. It was submitted that the recording of such an incorrect fact in the impugned order indicates that the facts of the assessee’s case might not have been properly appreciated while adjudicating the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee by restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the application seeking condonation of delay. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the prayer for restoration of the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in declining to condone the substantial delay of 571 days and dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through para nos. 6.3 and 6.4 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect:

4 7. On perusal of the above, we find that, before declining to condone the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee is a trust. However, from the material available before us, it is apparent that the assessee is not a trust. Thus, it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to decide the issue of condonation of delay on the premise of an incorrect factual assumption. In our considered view, when the very decision on condonation of delay is found to have been rendered with reference to facts which do not pertain to the assessee, the matter requires reconsideration by the Ld. CIT(A) on the correct factual matrix. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay of 571 days, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to reconsider the application for condonation of delay afresh, after taking into account the correct facts of the assessee’s case and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In case the Ld. CIT(A), upon such reconsideration, is satisfied that sufficient cause existed for the delay and condones the same, he shall thereafter adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), furnish the necessary explanation and supporting material in respect of the delay, and not seek unnecessary adjournments. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 487/Hyd/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA No. 488/Hyd/2026: 9. The present appeal relates to the penalty arising out of the quantum proceedings which are the subject matter of appeal in ITA No. 487/Hyd/2026. We have already set aside the quantum appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration of condonation of delay in filing the quantum appeal. Since the outcome of the present penalty appeal is dependent upon the outcome of the quantum appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore the present appeal also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who shall adjudicate the penalty appeal afresh in accordance with law after deciding the quantum appeal in ITA No. 487/Hyd/2026. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.488/Hyd/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. To sum up, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st August, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21st August, 2026. Vinodan/sps

6 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Janardhan Reddy Challagonda, 6-1-132/133/1/28 BAPUJINAGAR ,PARSIGUTTA ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500061 2 Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), IT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank,. Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Digitally signed by KAMALA KAMALA KUMAR KUMAR ORUGANTI ORUGANTI Date: 2026.08.21 11:29:23 +05'30'