What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation was also defective and unsigned.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 48 days. The application for condonation of delay was unsigned, and the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee, and if the appeal is maintainable due to the delay.

Venkat Reddy Thondalpally vs ITO | ITAT Hyderabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G

For Respondent: MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR

Pronounced: 10.06.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ�, हैदराबाद INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD “SMC”-BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 1942/HYD/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2015-16) VENKAT REDDY ITO, WARD-9(1) THONDALPALLY O/O ITO, WARD- 9 (1), 5-171/1 , SAI VIHAR NAGAR, MEERPET, Vs. HYDERABAD-500028, HYDERABAD-500097, TELANGANA TELANGANA (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��यथ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number ACQPT3282R of Assessee: िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee -None- represented by: राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 03.06.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 10.06.2026

2 ITA.No.1942/Hyd./2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 28.07.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short "NFAC"], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016.

There is a delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal. Though the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay however, the said application for condonation of delay is unsigned. Notices were issued to the assessee to rectify the defects but, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee whenever this appeal was listed for hearing except on 20.04.2026 when the assessee has filed an application for adjournment. The application of the assessee was considered and the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 02.06.2026. On 02.06.2026 none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite the fact that on the earlier date of hearing case was adjourned at the request of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was deferred

3 ITA.No.1942/Hyd./2025 and adjourned to 03.06.2026 from 02.06.2026. However, even on 03.06.2026 nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the Bench proposed to hear and adjudicate the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

The learned DR has strongly opposed to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause much less sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal.

We have heard the learned DR and perused the relevant material on record. Since the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation and the application for condonation of delay as well as the grounds of appeal are unsigned therefore, in the absence of proper application for condonation of delay and otherwise in the absence of explaining a ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal, the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable being barred by limitation. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application as under:

4 ITA.No.1942/Hyd./2025 “2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of approximately 45 days. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to reasons fully beyond the control of the appellant, explained as under: Reasons for Delay A) Health issues/family circumstances The appellant and his family members faced health-related constraints during the period due to which immediate consultation with a tax professional and preparation of the appeal could not be undertaken. B) Financial and administrative constraints Being a salaried teacher with modest means and no business activity, the appellant had difficulty arranging timely professional assistance and funds for for preparing a detailed ITAT appeal and C) Genuine belief that matter was already explained The appellant believed that all documents were fully explained before the CIT(A), and did not initially anticipate the need for further appeal. Only after professional advice did the appellant become aware that an ITAT appeal was required to protect his rights.”

Thus, it is manifest from the record that except claiming that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, the assessee has not given any details of the health related constraints which has prevented the assessee from filing the

5 ITA.No.1942/Hyd./2025 appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has not made out a case for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being barred by limitation.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANJUNATHA G. VIJAY PAL RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 10th June, 2026 VBP Copy to: 1 VENKAT REDDY THONDALPALLY, 5-171/1 , SAI VIHAR NAGAR, MEERPET, HYDERABAD-500097, TELANGANA 2 ITO, WARD-9(1),HYDERABAD-500028, TELANGANA 3 THE Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4 THE D.R., ITAT, SMC-BENCH, HYDERABAD. 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / Date: 2026.06.10 RAO I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD 12:57:25 +05'30'

VENKAT REDDY THONDALPALLY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments