RAIN CEMENTS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 540/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member)26 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reasons provided for the inordinate delay were not convincing and did not constitute a 'sufficient cause'. The assessee's casual approach and negligence were noted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 1491 days against an intimation under section 143(1). The assessee claimed the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and non-receipt of the intimation on the ITBA portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to 'sufficient cause', and if the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 246A,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Hearing: 08.09.2025Pronounced: 12.09.2025

PER MANJUNATHA G. :

The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order dated 31.01.2025 of the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai, relating to the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 RE: GENERAL GROUND

1.

That the impugned order is bad in law, since it is contrary to facts on record and hence, the same deserves to be set aside.

2.

That the impugned order also deserves to be set aside, the same being perverse. RE: GROUNDS ON REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL

3.

That the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of approximately 3 months in the filing of the appeal and construing the delay t

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →