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

8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, even though there was no delay in filing the appeal, if we consider the date of receipt of the assessment order and the date of filing the appeal before

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

8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, even though there was no delay in filing the appeal, if we consider the date of receipt of the assessment order and the date of filing the appeal before

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

CHURCH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.394 & 395/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Church Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaalc0017F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.476 & 393/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Aurora Educational Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaata8751C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.475 & 392/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Karshak Vidya Parishad, Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaatk5390B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna,Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024

section 139. Since there was 1036 days of delay in filing Audit Report in form 10BB by the appellant, the only recourse available with the appellant was to condonation of delay from the CCIT/DGIT(Inv) who was empowered to grant condonation of delay up to 3 years, if he is satisfied of the reasonable cause of delay. Thus, the learned

MAHATHI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

8 SCC 685 in para-16 very clearly held as under : “16. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Court under these provisions. The explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court

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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

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

delay. Once the condonation is rejected, the appeal become non-est and the Ld.CIT(A) should not have proceeded to take up the appeal on merits. Even on merits, the following is submitted for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench. In respect of status of assessment of companies/shareholders who contributed the share capital of Rs, 311 crores

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

section 26955 of the Act...." cannot be considered as satisfaction for invoking penal provisions u/s 271D of the Act and thus penalty order u/s 271D deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that no penalty u/s 271D of the Act is leviable as the entire additions made in the assessment order

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

8) TMI 1528. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the aforesaid assessee had condoned the delay of 425 days involved in filing of the application. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr-DR vehemently submitted that as the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-16(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee

MVR PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

section 5 of the Limitation Act is a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligence or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee