HIRA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2450/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 September 2026AY 2017-1818 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hira Enterprises, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 244 days. The assessee explained the delay by stating a bona fide belief that the CIT(A) had set aside appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19. However, upon AO initiating assessment proceedings, notices were issued only for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 and 2018-19, but not for AY 2017-18. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the CIT(A) had restored appeals for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19, but dismissed the appeal for AY 2017-18. The assessee then consulted a professional and filed the present appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 244 days in filing the appeal, finding that there was no deliberate or willful attempt by the assessee to delay the filing. The delay was attributed to a bona fide mistake in verifying the appellate orders of the CIT(A), and the Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented and liberal approach, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal and Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,83,88,329/- as unexplained expenditure, the Tribunal found that the cash payment vouchers and the statement of Sri Arumugham did not conclusively prove that the expenditure related to the assessee firm's business affairs. The Tribunal noted that Sri Arumugham clarified that the payments were made as per the instructions of M/s. Larenon Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for their business purposes and that all of the assessee company's transactions were through banking channels. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition. The legal ground challenging the validity of the assessment order under Section 143(3) was dismissed as infructuous because the assessee succeeded on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 244 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, considering the bona fide mistake in ascertaining the status of the appeal before the CIT(A)? - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to a bona fide mistake and beyond the assessee's control, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. ITO and Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. - Revenue's contention: The reasons explained by the assessee do not constitute 'sufficient cause', and therefore, the delay should not be condoned. 2. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed? - Assessee's contention: The assessment proceedings were initiated consequent to a requisition under Section 132A, and therefore, the AO ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 147, making the order void ab initio. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the addition of Rs.1,83,88,329/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, confirmed by the CIT(A), is justified? - Assessee's contention: The cash payment vouchers do not relate to the assessee firm's business affairs, and the statement of Sri Arumugham was selectively considered by the AO. The assessee claims all transactions are through banking channels. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 68,Section 145(3),Section 115BBE,Section 133A,Section 132A,Section 153C,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad, dated 25.02.2025, and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of ‘244’ days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,181 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →