Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
13447 | IN TF{E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 5 OF 2026 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260,4 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 20.08.2025 passed in lTA.No.895lHydl2O25 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A, Hyderabad. Between: SLS Developers, 20-1371211, RB Nagar, Shamsha.bad, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 501 218. Rep., by its Partner, Sri Neerati Raju Mudiraj, S/o. Sri N. Kistaiah ..APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 8(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A V Raghu Ram Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. B Sapan Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel representing Ms. J Sunitha, Senior Standing counsel for lncome Tax DePartment The Court made the following: ORDER
T]{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TIIE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA ITTA No.5 of 2026 Dated: 29.01.2026 Between: SLS Developers, 20-137l2ll, RB Nagar, Shamshabad, Ranga lLeddy, Telangana - 50 | 218. Rep by its Partner, Sri Neerati Raju Mudiraj. Petitioner AND The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Signature Towers, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Konadpur, Hyderabad - 500 084. Respondent ORDER.: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Ht:ard Mr.A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned senior standing counsel representing Ms.J.Sunitha, learned senior standing counsel for Income I'ax Department appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The instant is an appeal which has been filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the appellant/assessee. \ \ \ \
t I I I The appeilant/assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No.895 of 2025 dated 20.08.2025 whereby the appeal that was preferred by the appellant assailing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 01.08.2024 was rejected on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation with the delay of 202 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the affidavit expressing the reasons for the delay that occurred in prefemng an appeal before the learned ITAT and contended that cause of the effect of COVID-l9 and the subsequent situation that prevailed post COVID-19 more particularly the business of the appellant coming to a standstill, they could not pursue the appeal promptly. He further contends that for the same reason, the appellant also could not contest the case effectively before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well, where the notice was not effectively served upon the appellant and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the appeal on merits without hearing the appellant on merits. In such a situation, if the appellant is denied
3 to contest the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on tht: technicalities or limitation, he would be rendered remeditess and the order of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would go unchallenged which could have far reaching ramificrltions, so far as business of appellant is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in any casr), the delay is only around 202 days which cannot be said to be an inordinate delay and the authorities have also been vested with the' powers to condone the delay on sufficient cause being explained. The Tribunal ought to have taken a more liberal and pragmat:c view and should had condoned the delay. The appellant prays for the same through the instant appeal filed under Section 260-A ol'lncome Tax Act. 5. Learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department on the other hand submits that perusal of the grounds of condonation of delay submitted before the 1earned ITAT itself would go to show that the grounds are nothing but lame excuses and it wers not the case where the appellant was not aware of \ \ \ \
T ii li: ti li iI ri it ti ii il ii I I it i: ii ii il li li,l I ,i . l , 4 having preferred an appeal and it was also not a case where the appellant was not represented by duly engaged representative and inspite of that if the appellant do not pursue the matter effectively before the authorities, it is they themselves who have to be blamed and the order of the tribunai therefore cannot be found fault. 6. Having heard the contentions of learned counsel on either side and on perusai of the record, particularly, taking into consideration the fact that the delay on the part of the appellant was only 202 days, further what is also reflected is that period during which the appeal was probably filed was immediately post Covid-19 period and during which time, there infact was certain difficulties which was being faced by every commercial establishment and the appellant herein is not exception to the same. Another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that here again is the case as contended by the appellant that the order of the Commissioner of [ncome Tax (Appeals) which the appellant intended to challenge before the Tribunal also was one which was decided without hearing the appellant on merits rather was I ! decided only on the basis of pleadings before the Commissioner
5 I I of Income Tax (Appeals) and at this juncture if the appellant's appeal before the ITAT is not restored, appellant would be render,:d remediless in challenging the finding arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 1'. In the opinion of this Bench, therefore upon imposition of certain penalty/cost upon the appellant, the delay in filing of the appeal before the ITAT can be condoned and the ITAT can be further directed to decide the appeal on its own merits and in accordance to Iaw. 8. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the instant appeal tr the extent of seffing aside the order of learned ITAT in ITA No 895 of 2025 dated 20.08.2025. so far as rejecrion of the appeal on the ground of condonation of delay, however, the appellan: is imposed with the cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid within a period of 15 days to the Telangana State Legar Services Authoritlr and upon such receipt being produced before the Registrar, ITAT, the ITA No.895 of 2a2s dated 20.0g.2025 would stand revived and the delay in filing of the appeal of 202 days ( t \ \
6 stand condoned and the appeal would be decided by the Tribunal on its own ments. 9. The ITTA is, accordingly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- K.SHYLESHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SriA V Raghu Ram, Advocate tOpUCI 3. one cc to Ms. J sunitha, senior Standing counsel for rncome Tax Department [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 6 To, I ADK/PSL ls
HIGH COURT DATEDi 2910112026 i I I I THE S () ? 7 r[8 2025 ORDER * lTTA.No.li of 2026 ALLOWING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS * b