PCH GLOBAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ 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. 283/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12) PCH Global Systems (P) Vs. Dy. CIT Ltd, Hyderabad Circle 5 ( 1 ) PAN:AAFCP0400M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 02/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by PCH Global Systems Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 13.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the appeal on merits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee merely on the ground of limitation without appreciating the bona fide reasons which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Ld. AR submitted that there was a delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit explaining the circumstances which resulted in the delay. It was submitted that the assessee-company had discontinued its business activities and, consequently, its administrative set-up had been substantially disturbed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has also placed on record the last audited financial statements prepared for Assessment Year 2014-15. Referring to the said financial statements, the Ld. AR submitted that the same substantiate the claim of the assessee that its business activities had already been discontinued. It was submitted that the assessee had suffered substantial losses during Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and, on account of such continuous and huge losses, the business operations of the assessee were eventually closed down. The closure of business had severely affected the administrative functioning of the company, resulting in dislocation of records and disruption in its regular affairs. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order got misplaced in

these circumstances and could not be traced immediately, which ultimately resulted in the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee to delay the filing of the appeal and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. It was further submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, the issues raised by the assessee could not be adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee are not sufficient to explain the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Guddennagari Ramkrishna Vs. ITO in ITA No.1191/Hyd/2024 dated 10.03.2025 and submitted that where sufficient cause is not shown, the delay cannot be condoned merely on equitable considerations. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed that the delay may not be condoned and the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. The short issue arising for our consideration is whether the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find from the record that the assessee had filed a condonation

petition supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to the delay. The explanation offered by the assessee is that its business activities had been discontinued and, due to closure of business operations, its administrative set-up had become disturbed. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO got misplaced and could not be traced immediately, resulting in the delay in filing the appeal. We have also gone through the financial statements of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 placed before us. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee had incurred substantial losses during the relevant period. The financial statements lend support to the contention of the assessee that its business activities had been discontinued on account of persistent losses suffered in Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The material placed on record, therefore, corroborates the explanation furnished by the assessee that, after closure of business operations, its administrative set-up was adversely affected and the records were not maintained in the normal course. In our considered view, the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be said to be either fanciful or lacking in bona fides. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, intentional or motivated by any mala fide consideration. On the contrary, the circumstances brought on record indicate that the delay occurred on account of practical difficulties faced by the assessee after closure of its business activities. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. CIT (174 taxmann.com 21), has held that a justice- oriented and liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay. We have also carefully considered the decision relied upon by the Ld. DR in

the case of Guddennagari Ramkrishna Vs. ITO (Supra). However, we find that the said decision is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the Tribunal found that the reasons furnished by the assessee were not sufficient to explain the delay and, therefore, declined to condone the same. In the present case, the assessee has produced material on record, including its financial statements, demonstrating that the business activities of the assessee had been discontinued due to substantial losses suffered in Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The closure of business operations and the consequent disturbance in the administrative set-up of the assessee constitute material facts which were not present in the case relied upon by the Ld. DR. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision would not apply to the peculiar facts of the present case. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. 8. Further, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee on merits. Therefore, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file all evidences, documents and

submissions in support of its claim before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. At the same time, the assessee is directed not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) so as to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 10th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 PCH Global Systems Private Ltd, c/o P. Murali & Co. 6-3- 655/2/3 Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 2 DC/ACIT Circle 5(1) Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.06.11 RAO 11:19:42 +05'30'