M/s Mandava Holdings Private Limited, vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/39/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01015094202530 October 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the delay of 800 days was inordinate. The reasons provided by the assessee, including the former employee's failure to inform the successor and the misplacement of papers in the auditor's office, were not considered sufficient. The Court noted that the assessee had filed a writ petition for AY 2016-17 against a common order for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 but did not file the appeal for AY 2017-18 within the prescribed period. The Court distinguished the assessee's reliance on the Katiji's case, citing Supreme Court decisions in Pathapati Subba Reddy and Gopi Chand Atreja, which held that condonation of delay cannot be granted on equitable considerations or grounds of hardship, and that rights not exercised within the prescribed period must cease to exist. The Court concluded that the assessee had not made out any justifiable grounds for condoning the delay. Consequently, the interlocutory application was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Mandava Holdings Private Limited, filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 800 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The delay was attributed to a former employee's failure to inform their successor about the appeal papers, which were subsequently found to be misplaced in the auditor's office. The Revenue contended that the delay was abnormal, the reasons provided were insufficient and routine, and the assessee had previously filed a writ petition for AY 2016-17 against a common order for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, but did not file the appeal for AY 2017-18 within the prescribed time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the delay of 800 days in filing the appeal against the ITAT's order dated 26.09.2022 for AY 2017-18, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was not willful or wanton but occurred due to a former employee's oversight in informing their successor about the appeal papers, which were subsequently misplaced in the auditor's office. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Others v. M/s Katiji & Others to support their plea for condonation. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the delay of 800 days was inordinate and the reasons provided were insufficient and amounted to routine or stock explanations. They further argued that the assessee had filed a writ petition for AY 2016-17 against a common order for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, but failed to file the appeal for AY 2017-18 within the stipulated time, suggesting a lack of diligence. The Revenue relied on Supreme Court decisions in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Legal Representatives & Others v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) and Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Another v. Gopi Chand Atreja.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO LA.No.2 of 2025 in/and lTTA.No: 39 OF 2025 Appeal under Section 2604 of lncome Tax Act, -1961 against the order dated 26-09-2022 in lTA.No 27iHYDl2022 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches "B" Hyderabad. Between: IVI/s ft4andava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad D.No.8-2-684/2/ A, 4th Floor, Plot No.1 to 4, Road No.1 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-s0O 034. Rep. By Director, Asha Priya Mandava ...Petitioner AND 1. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax (Central), Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad-500004. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax- Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004. ...Respondents Respondent No 2 Formal Party in this Petition Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 800 days in filing the above ITTA challenging the Order in ITA No.27lHydl2O22, daled 26.09.2022 lor A.Y.2017-18 on the file of lncome Tax Appeilate Tribunal and the appeal may be heard on merits and this l-lon'ble Court. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N. Praveen Reddy (Senior Standing Counsel for lT Department) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER [ 348e I lA NO: 2 OF 2025

--7 HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO IA.No.2 of 2o25 in/ and ITfA.No.39 of 2025 This applicatior.r is filed to condone the delay of (800) days in filing the appeal against the order, dt.26.O9.2O22 in ITA.No.27/Hydl2O22 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal HvderzLbad, Benches "8", Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') for the assessntent year 2017 -18. 2. The reasons mentioned by the petitioner-Company in the affidavit filed in support of this application, is that a former emplovee of the appellant failed to inform about to their Auditor, to his successor. That, only in the month of August, 2024, ttpon enquiry regarding the progress of the appeal, it came to light that the appeal papers were untraceable in the auditor's office, and subsequently, the COMMON ORDER: 1r'er the Hon'irlc Si Jtstice SrtddaLe Chatapathi Ro.o) passing of the orders by the Tribunal and sending the sajd frle

-- _\,.!,-'tsB 'l l auditor informed that the papers had been inadvertently misplaced in his office and, therefore, could not be forwarded to the appellant for obtaining the signature of the authorized signatory, due to w-hich, there is delay in filing of the appeal. It is further contended that the delay is neither willful nor wantorr, but it had occurre.f due to the above stated facts and circumstances, and prayed to condone the delay in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the I-irr,itation Act, 1963. 3. The respondents/ Rcvcnue filed counter inter alia stating that the present application is filed with abnormal delay and no sufficient cause and reasons are mentioned, alcl that the explanation given by the petitioner/ appellant, that a former emplol.ee, who u'as looking aftel the t;ui appeals, resigned without informing her srlcr:essor ns to the sending of appeal papers to the ar.rditor an<l that the said papers were misplaced in the auditor's office, arr d only in the month of Augrrst, 2O24, tbey could trace the appeal papers, is nothing but an afterthought, and the said reasons are routine and stock reasons. .l

4.

It is further stated that the impugned order is a common order for the assessnrent vears 2016-17 and 2077 - 18, and the petitioner/ appellant having filed a writ petition uide WP.No.2l77O of 2O24 before this Court for the assessrnent year 2016 17, now cannot conteud that the previous employee has not informcd about the said hie to the SUCCESSOT. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant, while reiterating the averments in ttre affidavit filcd in support of this application, placed reliance on the decision ol the Honble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Others u. M/s Katiji & Othersl and prayed for condonatlon of delay in prefcrring the appcal. 6. Per contra, Sri N.Plaveen Reddy, learned Senior Stancling Counsel for Income Tax appearing lor respondents submitted that the delay of (800) days sought to be condoned is inordinate and the reasons rnentionecl in the application ' 167 ITR a;t : (19s7) 2 scc to7

l does not entitle the petitioner/ appellant for condonation of such abnormal and inordinate delav. 7 . As seen from the record, admittedly, the judgment in the underlying Income Ta-x Appeal u,as passed on26.O9.2022, and the present appeal rvas filed only on 11.O3.2025 i.e., with a delay of almost (29) months and reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are not satisfactory for the reason that the petitioner/ appellant having preferred a writ petition ln respect of the assessment yeat 2016-17 against the common order passed for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, did not choose to fi1e appeal for the assessment year 2OI7 - I B, *'ithin the prescribed period of time. As such, in our considered opinion, the petitioner/ appellant has not shos'n any justihable grounds lor condoning the delay. 8. Further, the decision relicd upon by the petitioner/ appellant I t-l Kotiji's COSC (supra) 1S distinguishable, in the light of the decisions rendered by the

i \ i Apex Court rn Pathapati Subba Red"dg (Died) bg Lcgal Representatiues & Others v. Speciag Deputg Collector (LA)2 and Estate OfJicer, Hanyana Urban Deaelopment Autlrcritg & Another a. Gopi Chsnd Atreja3. 9. In the l(ati/t's case (supra}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on thc principle of equality ald fairness, held that no discrimination should be made merely because State is seeking condorLation of deiay. Contrary thereto, in Po:tho,pati Subba Reddg (Died)'s case(stipra), the A^prex Court held that condonation of delal' cannot bc granted on equ itable considerations or on grounds oI hzr::dship, and that a right or remedy not exercised or ar';riled within thc prescribed period or for a prolonged period, must come to an end or ccase to exist. Similarly, 1n Gopi Chand Atrejo's case(supra), the Apex Court vr,hile observing that the appellant's officers in charge of legal cell, failed to discharge their duties promptly and u,ith due diligence, despite availability of all facilities and 1- 1zoZl7 tl. Supreme Coun Cases -13(r ' (2019) { Supremc Coun Cases 612 \ I I

6 infrastructures, held that the delay u.as not su fficientlv explained 10. In view of the above judicial precedents of the Ho"ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered vier.r, that the petitioner/appellant has not made out any grounds for condoning the delay ol (800) da.,s in prelerring the appeal, and thus, the interlocutory application is liable to be rejected. 1 1. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application uide IA.No.2 any, shall stand dismissed SD/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/1 SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM (For His LordshiP's kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches "8" Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Praveen Reddy (Senior Standing Counsel for lT Department) [OPUC] 4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. 7. Two CD Copies SHY To, Kar sa / P of 2025 is dismissed. Consequentl',,, the ITTA stands rejected. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.2 of 2025 in/and ITTA.No.39 of 2025 l.A.No.2 ot 20251S DISMISSED & ITTA STANDS REJECTED t * lHE S 3 1 JAil 2{126 z * (v\ i$ i. .)

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →