Alakapuri Sai Mandiram Trust… vs ITO | s.143(1), 11(1)(a)/(b) | ITAT Hyderabad 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SM ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 30/10/2025

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Alakapuri Sai Mandiram Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, Hyderabad Ward 11(1) PAN:AADTA7032K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri A Srinivas, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 30/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Alakapuri Sai Mandiram Trust, Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority)”) dated 29/04/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust which had filed an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the processing of return of income made by the Centralized Processing Centre (“CPC”) under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 26.09.2019. However, there was a delay of 1,817 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, did not find the reasons for such an inordinate delay to be satisfactory and accordingly declined to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority in limine as being barred by limitation.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. We have heard the rival contention and carefully considered the material available on record. It is observed that there was an inordinate delay of 1,817 days in filing the appeal

Page 2 of 4 before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Despite such a long delay, the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for the delay before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The power to condone delay under section 249(3) of the Act is discretionary on the part of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and can be exercised only when the assessee shows sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. In the instant case, as no such reasonable cause has been demonstrated by the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the Ld. First Appellate Authority did not condone the delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has also failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause qua, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in refusing to condone the delay. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee before us also fails.

ALAKAPURI SAI MANDIRAM TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD