INTURI PRAVEEN REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1176/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 September 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed paid the cost of Rs. 2,000/- within the stipulated period as per the evidence produced. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-payment of cost within the stipulated time, which was found to be erroneous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal which was previously set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after considering documents and affording an opportunity of hearing, along with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid within one month. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the cost was not paid within the stipulated time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of non-payment of cost within the stipulated time, despite evidence to the contrary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act sections

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 15/09/2025

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Inturi Praveen Reddy (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 02.07.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1.

1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the appeal filed by the assessee is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the first round, the Tribunal, vide order in dated 09.02.2023, had set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after considering the documents available on record and by affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. While remanding, the Tribunal had also directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within one month or from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal whichever is earlier. In the consequential proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 02.07.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee had failed to pay the directed cost within the stipulated time. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee had paid the said amount belatedly on 10.06.2025, after a delay of more than two years. The relevant observations of Ld. CIT(A) contained at para nos. 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the order, which is to the following effect :

4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has once again come up in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the Tribunal had passed the order on 09.02.2023 and the assessee had already paid the cost of Rs.2,000/- on 04.02.2023, i.e., well within the stipulated period of one month. It was explained that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the evidence of such timely payment could not be traced and therefore was not produced.

To avoid any adverse consequence, the assessee once again deposited Rs.2,000/- on 10.06.2025, but the Ld. CIT(A), relying only on the subsequent payment, held that the cost had not been paid within the stipulated period. The Ld. AR has now produced before this Tribunal the necessary evidence confirming that the cost was indeed paid on 04.02.2023, i.e., within the stipulated period directed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that there was full compliance on the part of the assessee, and the dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified.

5.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld.

DR”) fairly submitted that in view of the evidence now produced confirming timely payment, he has no objection if the matter is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits in terms of the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 09.02.2023 in ITA No.576/Hyd/2022.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has now placed before us conclusive evidence showing that the cost of Rs.2,000/- directed by was duly paid on 04.02.2023, which is to the following effect :

7.

On perusal of above, it is evident that the assessee had paid the cost of Rs.2,000/- well within the stipulated period. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the solitary ground that the assessee fails to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/- within the stipulated time. Therefore, in our considered view, as the assessee has deposited the cost within the stipulated time, the appeal of the assessee is required to be decided on merits by the Ld. CIT(A).

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a specific direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits in strict conformity with the directions issued by this Tribunal in dated 09.02.2023, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →