Ravi Kumar Kandala vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITTA/20/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01006833202609 March 2026Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has indeed become inconsequential. This is because the original order dated 10.06.2025, which the MA sought to rectify, was set aside/quashed by this Court in a previous proceeding (ITTA No.21 of 2026). Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.12.2025, which rejected the MA, has also become inconsequential. The Court allowed the instant appeal, setting aside the order dated 05.12.2025. The appellant is now permitted to contest the case before the Tribunal in ITA No.333/Hyd/2025 on its own merits, as previously directed. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Ravi Kumar Kandala, filed an Income Tax Tribunal Appeal (ITTA) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench 'B', in MA No.82/Hyd/2025, which was in relation to ITA No.333/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2011-2012. The appellant had previously filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) under Section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of an order dated 10.06.2025 passed in ITA No.333/Hyd/2025. This Court, in a separate order dated 09.01.2016 in ITTA No.21 of 2026, had allowed a previous appeal, setting aside the order dated 10.06.2025 concerning the condonation of delay and remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on the main appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Miscellaneous Application (MA) filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has become inconsequential given that the original order it sought to rectify was set aside by this Court. The appellant contended that since the order dated 10.06.2025 was quashed, the MA filed for its rectification has lost its purpose and should be considered inconsequential. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13447 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTI-I DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA ITTA NO: 20 OF 2026 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 0511212025 passed in MA No.82lHydl2025 in ITA No,333iHyd/2025 for the Assessment Yeat 2011-2012 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad. Between: Ravi Kumar Kandala, S/o Venu Gopala Chary, Aged about 48 years, Occ Employee, RJo Flat No,8O1, Prithvi Block, My Home Nawadeepa Apartments, Madhapur, Hitech City, Hyderabad 500081 PAN AJPPK3365G. ...Appellant AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 12(6), Hyderabad, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LB StaCium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Kailash t{ath P S S Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Senior Sc for lncome Tax Department The Court delivered the following: Judgment

IN THE HI(;H CoT,]IIT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN(;ANA AI'HYDERABAD T}IE HON'BI-E SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THT, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSINC RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX'I'RIBUNAL APPEAL No.20 of 2026 DAT[:09.0i.2026 Betrl'ecn: Ilavi Kuntal Kandala Appe Ilan t AND The Inconre'l ar Ofliccr. Ward )2(6). Hyderabad, Aaykirr Bhari,an, Opposite LB Stadium, Bashecl llaeh. I lvdcra l)ad -j 00004. l'elangana. Respondcnt JUD(]MENT:, 1'. t rlt, l1 n /!. \rr /r\1/1. 2 S,r/r A/)\/ / 'fhc instanl appeal has becn flle<l by the appellant under.Scction 260A of thc Inconrc .['ar Act. I96 I (1br short 'rhe Act') assailinq the orclcr lrassed br the lrrcorne l ax Appellate- l'Libunal, I ll,dcrabad 'B' Bench. Hyderabad, (hrr short the 'Tribunai') in MA No.82/llvd/202-5, in ITA No.3l3ll iyd/2025. der idcd on 0-s. i2.2025

Page 2 ol3 2. Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P.S'S., learned couusel lor the appellant; and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for lncomc Tax Department appearing on behalf of thc respondent' 3. The appellant herein had prefcrred an MA undcr Section 254(2) of the Act seeking rectification of the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in ITA No.333iHydl2025. I/itte separate order dated 09'01 2016, this Court had allowed the said appeal serting asidc the ordc[ dated 10.06.2025 insolar as the rejection of the condone dela.v petition and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal lor deciding thc main appeal itscll'on its own merits in accordance with law. 4. In the light olthe original order datcd 10.06.1025 itselfgetting set aside / quashed, the MA filed under Section 25'l(2) olthe Act rvhich was rejected by the 1'ribunal vide the irrrpugncd ordcr dated 05.12.2025 has become inconsequential. Accordingly, as the order datcd 10.0(r.2025 was set aside / quashed in Income Tax -fribunal Appeal No'21 o{- 2026' the instant appeal also stands allowed setting asidc the order dated 05.12.2025 and leaving it open lbr the appetlanl to contest the case

Page 3 of' 3 beftrrc the 'l ribunal in l lA No.il3 /Hyd/2025 on its own nrcrits as has becn directed in Inconrc -l ax 'fribunal Appeal No.2l o12026 5. I'he instant appcal also accordingly stands allowed 6. \s a scquel, misccllaneous petitions pending il'any, shall stand closcci. Hou,er er. therc shall bc lto order as to costs SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Trrbunal, Hyderabad Bench ,B,, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRt. KAILASH NATH p S S, Advocate [OpUCl 3. One CC to SRt BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CD Copies ADK/ts A

HIGH COURT DATED: 09/03/2026 JUDGMENT |TTA.No.2O ot 2026 ALLOWING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS f riE 5 i.,i . iI\ ,,< -=----- e U 3 0 t'',ifl 2026 /-,(' * o ab ,t ,-.! g

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →