SALEM TOLLWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD -3(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 Nos. 2238 & 2239/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Salem Tollways Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 3 (1) PAN:AAJCS5465K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Manju Latha Boob राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 29/04/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by Salem Tollways Ltd (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 14.10.2025 and 15.10.2025 respectively for the A.Y.2022-23. Since both these appeals relate to the same assessee and the issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

2 ITA No.2238/Hyd/2025:

3 The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that there was a delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT (A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. It was submitted that the delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the holding company of the assessee was undergoing liquidation as a going concern pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble NCLT. Due to such liquidation proceedings, the assessee faced acute financial crisis and major disruption in its administrative setup. The Ld. AR further submitted that due to the said circumstances, key managerial personnel of the assessee left the company, which resulted in lack of proper coordination and delay in pursuing legal remedies. It was contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but was due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for such a substantial delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee are general in nature

4 and do not justify the inordinate delay. Accordingly, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the same may be upheld. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the explanation furnished by the assessee and find that the delay has occurred due to the liquidation proceedings of the holding company pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble NCLT, which resulted in financial constraints and disruption in the administrative functioning of the assessee. On perusal of the same, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. It is a settled principle of law that while considering condonation of delay, a liberal approach should be adopted so as to advance substantial justice, particularly when the delay is not deliberate or attributable to negligence. We further observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. Thus, the assessee has been deprived of an opportunity of having its case decided on merits. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay of 289 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to

5 cooperate in the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

“1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the A.O’s order solely on the ground of late appeal filing, without considering the merits of the appeal. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is in gross violation of the provisions of law and hence is bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the order of the A.O and dismissing the appeal. – Rs.14,85,44,575/- 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessment under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.. 5. Any other ground that may be considered at the time of hearing”. 10. The present appeal relates to levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, arising from the quantum proceedings in ITA No.2238/Hyd/2025. In the quantum appeal in ITA No.2238/Hyd/2025, we have already set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. In the present appeal also, there is a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), without condoning the said delay, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without going into the merits of the case. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the reasons for delay in filing the present appeal are identical to those explained in ITA No.2238/Hyd/2025. We have already considered the said

6 reasons in the quantum appeal and found the same to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. After considering the submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee for delay of 82 days are bona fide and identical to those accepted by us in ITA No.2238/Hyd/2025. Therefore, following our findings in the said quantum appeal, we condone the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, since the quantum issue itself has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the penalty proceedings, being consequential in nature, cannot be adjudicated independently at this stage. Accordingly, we 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 after deciding the quantum issue, and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2239/Hyd/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 29th April, 2026. Vinodan/sps

7 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Salem Tollways Ltd, M-22/3RT, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Hyderabad 500057, Telangana 2 Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1) Kondapur Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.04.29 RAO 15:21:55 +05'30'