PRASHANTH REDDY TADISINA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

(NFAC), Delhi, dated 22.09.2023, and pertains to assessment year 2013-

14.

:: 2 :: 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of ‘681’ days in appeal

filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed

petition along with affidavit and explained the reasons for delay in filing of

appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to affidavit filed by

the assessee submitted that, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC passed order on

22.09.2023 and in the ordinary course, appeal should have been filed

before the Tribunal within ‘60’ days from the end of the month in which

appellate order received by the assessee. However, the present appeal

has been filed on 11.10.2025 with a delay ‘681’ days. The Ld. Counsel for

the assessee further submitted that the appeal couldn’t be filed on or

before due date provided under the Act, due to the reasons beyond the

control of the assessee, because, initially the appeal was filed before the

Ld.CIT(A), Hyderabad-4 on 09.07.2016 and the Ld.CIT(A), Hyderabad-4

posted the case for hearing on 10.08.2017 and after considering relevant

additional evidences filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income

Tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules“), Remand Report was called for

from the AO. Further, the assessee also approached the AO to expedite

the issue. In the meantime, the Faceless Scheme of disposal of the

appeal brought into the statute and the pending appeals have been

transferred to NFAC. The assessee under bonafide belief that the

Ld.CIT(A), Hyderabad-4 will send communication for posting the case for

hearing, however, on 01.11.2022, the NFAC enabled communication

window and notice was sent to e-mail ID: aach1@mahidharaprojects.com :: 3 :: and CC: agmacc@mahidharaprojects.com. and the assessee has

acknowledged the communication received from the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC to

e-mail ID: agmacc@mahidharaprojects.com. Further, the e-mail ID:

aach1@mahidharaprojects.com is operated by employees of the assessee

and another e-mail ID: agmacc@mahidharaprojects.com was belong to

the company M/s.Mahidara Projects Pvt. Ltd., which is mostly referred to

by the assessee. However, all notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) were

issued to aach1@mahidharaprojects.com, except on one occasion i.e. on

14.03.2023 where the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC marked a copy to

agmacc@mahidharaprojects.com. However, the above e-mail was not

appearing in the e-mail box of the assessee, due to this, the assessee

unnoticed the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Further, recently Shri

Narayan Reddy, CA was appointed to look after search and seizure

proceedings took place on 08.03.2025 and during that time, he noticed

that there was a huge outstanding demand of Rs.7,23,90,830/- for AY

2013-14 and on further follow-up in the IT portal, it is noticed that the

order of the Ld.CIT(A) was passed on 22.09.2023 confirming the order of

the AO. Thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the appeal and in the

process, there is a delay of ‘681’ days which is neither intentional nor for

want of any undue benefit. Further, the AO has made addition towards

capital introduced by the assessee to proprietary concern and the same

has been explained out of known source of income. But, the AO & the

Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the explanation of the assessee. Before the :: 4 :: Ld.CIT(A), proceedings were ex-parte and the Ld.CIT(A) has not

considered the explanation furnished by the assessee along with Form 35.

Since the assessee is having a case on merits and if the appeal is

dismissed on technical reasons, the assessee is deprived of his right to

defend with relevant materials which results in a meritorious case may be

thrown out of judicial scrutiny as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107.

Therefore, he submitted that the delay in filing of appeal should be

condoned and the appeal filed by the assessee should be admitted.

filed by the assessee for condoning the delay and submitted that there is

an inordinate delay of ‘681’ days in filing of appeal, for which, reasons

given by the assessee doesn’t come under ‘sufficient cause’ and therefore,

huge delay of ‘681’ days shouldn’t be condoned. The Ld.SR-AR for

Revenue further referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., reported

in 1962 2 SCR 762 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Basawaraj & Anr. V. Spl. Laq. Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC

746, submitted that reasons given by the assessee for condoning the

delay doesn’t come under ‘sufficient cause’. Since the assessee has not

explained the delay with ‘sufficient cause’, the delay in filing of appeal

shouldn’t be condoned and appeal filed by the assessee should be

dismissed ‘in limine’.

of affidavit filed by the assessee for explaining the reasons for delay in

filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, there is a delay ‘681’

days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee explained the

reasons for delay in filing of appeal and claimed that appeal has been filed

with a delay of ‘681’ days due to the reasons beyond the control of the

assessee. We find that, initially the appeal has been filed before the

Ld.CIT(A), Hyderabad-4 and appellate proceedings were in progress. The

faceless Scheme of Appellate procedures have been brought into the

statute and all pending appeals has been transferred to NFAC. During the

transition period and while transferring records to NFAC, in many cases,

the assessees were not aware of the procedure and due to this, notices

issued by the NFAC were unnoticed due to non-communication of relevant

e-mail sent by NFAC or in some cases due to change in e-mail ID

provided by the assessee. In the present case, it was a claim of the

assessee that, he has represented his case before the Ld.CIT(A) and also

filed various evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Rules and Remand

Report was called for from the AO. Meantime, the appeal has been

transferred to NFAC and the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC issued notices to e-mail ID

provided by the assessee in the ITR filed for relevant AYs, even though,

the assessee has provided different e-mail ID:

agmacc@mahidharaprojects.com in Form 35 before the Ld.CIT(A). Due :: 6 :: to these reasons, the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) were unnoticed by

the assessee including the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on 22.09.2023.

Further, during search and seizure operation proceedings, the assessee

came to know huge outstanding demand for AY 2013-14, and only after

noticing the outstanding demand, steps have been taken to download

order from ITBA Portal for filing the appeal before the Tribunal which

resulted in delay of ‘681’ days. But, the delay is neither intentional nor for

want of any undue benefit.

appears that due to change in appellate proceedings from Ld.CIT(A),

Hyderabad-4 to the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee has not noticed the

notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) which resulted in delay in filing of appeal

before the Tribunal and therefore, in our considered view, the reasons

given by the assessee in the affidavit for explaining the delay does come

under ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay. Further, the assessee

has made out a prima facie case on merits. Therefore, once, the

assessee made out a case on merits then if an appeal dismissed on

technicalities, a meritorious case may be thrown out of judicial scrutiny as

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land

Acquisition v. Katiji, reported in [1987] 2 SCC 107. Since no litigant is

deriving any benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly, in our considered

view going on by the explanation filed by the assessee in the affidavit

filed for condoning the delay, it appears that the reasons given by the :: 7 :: assessee for explaining the delay does come under reasonable cause for

condoning the delay. In so far as case law relied upon by the Ld.Sr.AR

for the Revenue, in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa

Coalfields Ltd. & in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. V. Spl. Laq. Officer

(supra), in our considered view, while condoning the delay, the Courts

would consider the explanation furnished by the assessee in light of

‘sufficient cause’ before condoning the delay. Therefore, observation of

any Courts in relation to facts of that case can’t be considered as ‘ratio

decidendi’ for the purpose of condoning the delay, because condonation of

delay is depending upon facts of each case and explanation offered by the

assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the case laws relied upon by

the Ld.Sr.AR for the Revenue, are not applicable to the facts of the

present case and thus rejected.

case and also explanation furnished by the assessee in affidavit filed for

explaining the reasons for delay in filing, we are of the considered view

that, the delay of ‘681’ days in filing of appeal should be condoned for

advancement of substantial justice. Thus, we condoned the delay of ‘681’

days before the Tribunal subject to a condition that the assessee shall pay

a nominal cost of Rs.10,000/- to Prime Ministers National Relief Fund

within one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce

relevant payment receipt to the Registry.

:: 8 :: 7. Coming back to the appeal filed by the assessee, the AO made

addition of Rs.8,02,22,791/- towards capital introduced and advance

taken on the ground that the assessee has failed to file relevant details to

explain the source for capital introduced into the proprietary concern.

The assessee claims that, it has filed various additional evidences

including details of source for explaining the capital introduced into the

proprietary concern by filing an application u/r.46A of the Rules but the

Ld.CIT(A) without considering relevant additional evidences filed by the

assessee dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without discussing

the issues on merits. We find that, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

filed by the assessee by a non-speaking order without considering the

relevant additional evidences filed by the assessee to explain the source

for capital introduced into proprietary concern. Since the appellate

proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) are ex parte and the assessee has not

filed any explanation before the Ld.CIT(A) except filing petition u/r.46A of

the Rules along with additional evidences and the additional evidences

filed by the assessee has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A), in our

considered view, the issue needs to be set aside to the file of the

Ld.CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to

explain its case. Thus, we set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore

the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The

Ld.CIT(A) is directed to re-consider the issue after providing reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case. The assessee :: 9 :: is also directed to present its case along with evidences as and when the

case is listed for hearing without seeking any adjournment.

purposes.

Order pronounced on the 10th day of June, 2026, in Hyderabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (िवजय पाल राव) (मंजूनाथा. जी) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MANJUNATHA.G) उपा�� /VICE-PRESIDENT लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 10.06.2026. TLN

आदेशकी �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:

िनधा�रती/The 1 : Prashanth Reddy Tadisina, 118/A Mahidhara, Jounalist Colony, Road No.70, Jubilee Hills, Assessee Hyderabad-500 033.

राज�/ The Revenue 2 : The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad.

3 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT Hyderabad. 4 गाड�फ़ाईल / Guard file 5

आदेशानुसार / 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: 2026.06.10 12:35:27 +05'30'

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad