TALENT POOL INDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -2(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 250/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 May 2026AY 2014-157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the assessee's reason for delay, an oversight in noticing departmental emails, constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2014-15. The case was reopened due to information about speculative transactions. The assessee failed to provide details, and the AO made additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) with a delay of over four months, citing oversight in noticing emails.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) constituted a 'sufficient cause' for condonation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Sunil Gowtham

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद “एस एम सी” बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.250/Hyd/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Talent Pool India Solutions Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AACCT4206E (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : None. Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri T. Sunil Gowtham, Department Represented by Sr. A.R. (Appeared through Hybrid Mode) सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 11.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 13.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

2 ITA No.250/Hyd/2026 Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 26.11.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 17.06.2016 declaring total income at Rs.8,85,614/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Mumbai regarding speculative transactions carried out by the assessee in commodity trading through NSEL, the case has been reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. observed that, the assessee had not disclosed speculative income in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021 was issued and in response, the assessee filed return of income on 15.04.2021 declaring total income of Rs.8,85,614/-.

3.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. issued notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, from time to time calling upon the assessee to furnish details regarding speculative commodity transactions carried out through NSEL and source for related transactions. Although, the assessee initially did not respond to statutory notices, subsequently, in response to

3 ITA No.250/Hyd/2026 Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

show-cause notice issued by the A.O., the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that due to non- updation of DSC and oversight in finding the notices issued through portal, necessary details could not be furnished earlier. The assessee further submitted that, speculative transactions entered in the books of account were wrongly accounted by the accountant and there was no undisclosed speculative income as alleged by the Department. However, the A.O., not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and in absence of supporting evidences, completed assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.13,85,610/- by making addition towards speculative income.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that delay in filing of appeal was due to oversight in noticing email correspondence received from the Department regarding the assessment order. The assessee further submitted that, immediately after noticing the assessment order, necessary steps were taken for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

4 ITA No.250/Hyd/2026 Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

The assessee further submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. towards speculative income is not justified, because the transactions carried out through NSEL were duly accounted in the books of account and there was no undisclosed speculative income assessable in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee submitted that, delay in filing of appeal may be condoned and the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the reasons explained for delay in filing of appeal, observed that, the assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with delay of more than four months from the date of service of assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, except stating that the assessment order received through email was not noticed by oversight, the assessee has not furnished any convincing explanation or documentary evidences to substantiate sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal within the prescribed time under the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that, condonation of delay is not automatic, and the assessee has failed to explain the delay with sufficient and bona fide reasons. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation petition filed by

5 ITA No.250/Hyd/2026 Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

the assessee and dismissed the appeal in ‘limine’ without going into merits of the additions made by the A.O.

6.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

7.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri T. Sunil Gowtham, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee failed to furnish any sufficient cause for delay of more than four months in filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue further submitted that, except making general statement regarding oversight in noticing email communication received from the Department, the assessee has not furnished any supporting evidences to substantiate the reasons explained for delay. Therefore, he submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly rejected the condonation petition filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine.

8.

We have heard the learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue and perused the relevant orders of the A.O. and the learned CIT(A). We find that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is ex parte. The assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of

6 ITA No.250/Hyd/2026 Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

more than 4 months. The assessee has explained the delay by stating that, the assessee by oversight missed email correspondence sent by the Department communicating the assessment order and further, after noticing the fact, took steps immediately, which resulted in delay. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that, the reason given by the assessee does not come under “sufficient cause”. In our considered view, going by the facts of the case and the proceedings before the A.O., it appears that, the assessee has furnished certain email address for corresponding with Department and the email sent by the Department was not noticed by the assessee which resulted in non-filing of the appeal within the time allotted under the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, there is a “sufficient cause” for the assessee for not filing the appeal on or before the due date. Since the delay is very small and the reasons given by the assessee appear to be bona fide and constitute “sufficient cause”, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay caused in filing the appeal before the 1st appellate authority. Thus, we condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, since the Ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the

7 ITA No.250/Hyd/2026 Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

issue on merits, the issue has been set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue involved in the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (मंजूिधथ जी) (RAVISH SOOD) (MANJUNATHA G.) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 13.05.2026. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee Talent Pool India Solutions Pvt. Limited, 8th Floor, Tower, : A. Ramky Selenium Building, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Financial District, Hyderabad – 500032, Telangana. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 4. 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER TIRUPATI YAMINI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI NAGA Date: 2026.05.14 10:51:10 MALLESWARI +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →