PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

PARANJYOTHI THOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos. 2050 & 2079/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Paran Jyothi Thota Vs. Asstt. Cit Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Ajqpt7772F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate C. Anurag रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09/09/2025 & 25/09/2025, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Page 1 Of 33

Section 249(3)of the Act is discretionary in nature and the assessee cannot seek condonation of delay under this provision as a matter of right but has to satisfy the FAA by explaining the sufficient cause for the delay. (v) Just because there is merit in the appeal filed by the assessee, any amount of delay, however, negligently caused

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

condone the delay in filing the appeal however, confirmed the order of the Ld. AO on merits by relying on the second remand report obtained from the Ld. AO dated 8/11/2016 and by disregarding the first remand report dated 17/3/2015. Submitted by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities, the assessee is in appeal before

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue’s stand. The assessee’s twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant’s resignation and communication

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue’s stand. The assessee’s twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant’s resignation and communication

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and see no reason to express our agreement with the Revenue’s stand. The assessee’s twin condonation petition(s)/affidavit(s) have already attributed the reason of the impugned delay(s) to its tax consultant’s resignation and communication

KUMUD BAJAJ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.782/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kumud Bajaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Acepb3914A Khammam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vamsi Krishna, Sr. Ar

10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr-DR vehemently submitted that as the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the CIT(A) was not only inordinate but also not supported by any justifiable reason backed by irrefutable documentary evidence, therefore, the same had rightly been declined to be condoned

D PEDA REDDAIAH ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PRODDUTUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri D. Pedda Reddaiah Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop:Sri Lakshmi Ward-1 Proddatur Venkateswara Wines, Kadapa Distt. Pan:Agipd1836F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Smt. M. Narmada, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2020 Order This Is Assessee’S Appeal For The A.Y 2010-11 Filed Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-Kurnool, Dated 4.3.2015. 2. At The Outset It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 1422 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating As Under: “1. I, D. Peda Reddaiah, S/O D.Subbarayudu, Aged About 47 Years, Prop. Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines, Housed At 11/231, Badvel Road, Mydukur Village, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Do Solemnly Affirm & State As Under: 2. I Am An Illiterate & Not Well Conversant With The Statutory Provisions & I Carried On Business In Wines For Two Years At Mydkur Village. I Don'T Have Any Formal Education. 3. I Have Carried On Wines Business Under The Name & Style Of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Wines For About Two Page 1 Of 11

10. If the delay is condoned, a meritorious case would be heard on merits by hearing both the deponent and the Department and on the contrary, if the delay is not condoned, a meritorious case would be thrown out on the Page 2 of 11 ITA No 559 of 2019 D Pedda Reddaiah Kadapa. threshold violating the principles of natural

SRI VENAKTESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD1- (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

condonation of delay which are reproduced in para 5 to 7 of the order as under: Page 2 of 37 ITA Nos 1002 and 1003 of 2024 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam 4. We further note that vide order dated 9/9/2024 in Writ Petition No.23368/2024, the Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 2 and as under: “2. This petition

SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

condonation of delay which are reproduced in para 5 to 7 of the order as under: Page 2 of 37 ITA Nos 1002 and 1003 of 2024 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam 4. We further note that vide order dated 9/9/2024 in Writ Petition No.23368/2024, the Hon'ble High Court has observed in para 2 and as under: “2. This petition

GOVARDHANA GIRISHWARA DEVASTHANAM TRUST,TIRUPATI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us:

10-10-2024 and 26-12-2024 denied a fair opportunity to the Assessee to explain the delay. 5. The Assessee submits that it is well within the ambit of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone the delay of the application filed for regular registration under section

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

10. We may herein observe that the captioned appeals were earlier disposed off by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No(s). 1126, 1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024, dated 27.11.2024, but thereafter on an application filed by the assessee, the same were recalled vide order passed in MA Nos.27 to 29/Hyd/2025, dated 23.06.2025. 11. We have heard the learned Authorized

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

10. We may herein observe that the captioned appeals were earlier disposed off by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No(s). 1126, 1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024, dated 27.11.2024, but thereafter on an application filed by the assessee, the same were recalled vide order passed in MA Nos.27 to 29/Hyd/2025, dated 23.06.2025. 11. We have heard the learned Authorized

RAMULU BANDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

10. We may herein observe that the captioned appeals were earlier disposed off by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No(s). 1126, 1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024, dated 27.11.2024, but thereafter on an application filed by the assessee, the same were recalled vide order passed in MA Nos.27 to 29/Hyd/2025, dated 23.06.2025. 11. We have heard the learned Authorized

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRK CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

SRK CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

10. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in light of above two case laws considered hereinabove, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay, does not come under “sufficient and reasonable cause” for condonation of huge delay

PUSA NANDA KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.154/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2007-2008) Sri Pusa Nanda Kumar, The Dcit, Hyderabad - 500001. Central Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Acupp6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

26 ITA.No.154/Hyd./2021 these principles but possibly carried away by the fact that the delay of 2984 days is incapable of condonation. That is not how a matter of this nature should be approached. In the process the Tribunal went about blaming the assessee and the professionals and equally the Department. To our mind, therefore, the Tribunal's order