INDIRA KONDA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDEARABAD

At the outset, there is a delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It was submitted that the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 21.03.2023 for the assessment year 2018-

The Ld. CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad passed the appellate order on 03.09.2025 and the same was communicated electronically on the same day to one of the assessee's ex-employee as well as to the erstwhile auditor whose details were available on the Income-tax portal.

It was further submitted that, neither the ex-employee nor the old auditor informed the assessee about the passing of the appellate order. Consequently, the assessee remained unaware of the disposal of the appeal. It was only when the assessee logged into the Income-tax portal on 29.12.2025 for the purpose of filing the return of income for assessment year 2025-26 that she came to know about the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, immediate steps were taken to prefer the present appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, there occurred a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. The assessee further submitted that the delay was caused due to bona fide reasons beyond her control and not on account of any deliberate negligence or malafide intention. Therefore, it was prayed that the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, Shri K. Prasad, on the other hand, opposed the condonation petition and submitted that, the assessee ought to have been vigilant in monitoring the status of the appellate proceedings and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

We have heard both parties and perused the petition and affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that, the reasons explained by the assessee appear to be bona fide and constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), has held that, a liberal and pragmatic approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so that substantial justice is advanced and meritorious matters are not defeated on technical grounds. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the bona fide reasons explained by the assessee, we condone the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed a return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 21.12.2018 admitting a total income of Rs. 24,60,000/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, was conducted in the case of M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP and, during the course of search, loose sheets were found and seized, which contained details of payments made in cash over and above the sale consideration for purchase of land at Mamidipalli, admeasuring 8 guntas. In the statement dated 14.08.2018, Shri Syed Hameeduddin accepted that cash of Rs. 6.49 crores was paid over and above the sale consideration. Out of the 8 guntas of land, the assessee was the owner of land admeasuring 1 gunta of the said land. Based on the said information, notice under Section 153C of the Act, was issued and, in response, the assessee filed a return of income on 14.02.2023 admitting a total income of Rs. 24,68,600/-.

The case was selected for scrutiny and, during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to explain as to why the capital gains should not be computed by taking into account the sale consideration as per the registered sale deed and on-money received as per the information found during the course of search. In response, the assessee submitted that she had sold agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/- and the same was purchased for a consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. The assessee further submitted that the land, being agricultural land situated beyond the specified limits of a municipality, is not a capital asset and therefore, not taxable under the Act. The assessee had also denied receipt of cash over and above the sale consideration as per the sale deed. The A.O., after considering the submissions and also taking note of the information found during the course of search, computed capital gains by taking into account the consideration as per the sale deed and the on-money received and, after allowing indexed cost of acquisition, computed long term capital gains of Rs. 43,80,292/- and added the same to the total income.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the impugned land sold to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP is an agricultural land situated beyond the specified limits of a municipality, which is not taxable under the Act. The assessee further denied receipt of cash and argued that the A.O. made the addition only on the basis of third-party statements without providing any opportunity of cross-examination. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the evidences relied upon by the A.O. for making the addition, rejected the explanation of the assessee and sustained the addition made towards capital gains on the ground that the evidences found during the course of search clearly show that cash of Rs. 98,00,000/- was received for sale of land to M/s. WIIZ Realtors LLP. Further, the assessee failed to prove the status of the land as agricultural land by filing relevant details. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the A.O.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

None appeared for the assessee.

We have heard the Ld. Sr. A.R., Shri K. Prasad, and perused the relevant material available on record. The case was posted for hearing on 05.05.2026 and on the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 15.06.2026 with a direction to the Registry to issue notice through RPAD. As per the directions of the Bench, the Registry issued the notice through RPAD and the notice issued by the Registry was returned unserved with the remark of the postal authorities, “Addressee left, hence returned to sender”. From the above, it is very clear that, the assessee is neither appearing when the case is listed for hearing nor receiving the notice when the Registry has sent hearing notice through Speed Post. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her case with relevant details, which is evident from the conduct of the assessee. Since the assessee has not responded to the notice of hearing and further, has not filed any details to justify her case with relevant details and to prove that the impugned land sold by her is an agricultural land and is not liable for tax, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards computation of long-term capital gains by taking into account on- money received for sale of land and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file