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

condoning delay in filing appeals. Section 249(3)of the Act, that allows the FAA to admit belated appeals, reads as under : "(3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." Page 17

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved 10 ITA.No.540/Hyd./2025 nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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)

condoning the delay, the other grounds taken by the assessee, including challenging the validity of the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Act, become academic in nature, and thus, the same are dismissed as ‘infructuous’. 17

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 28/03/2022, therefore, the same would not come to her rescue for explaining the inordinate delay of 594 days in filing the present appeal. 12. Apropos, the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra) that has been pressed into service

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

DINESH DAGA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

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 negligent 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 appeal

GLOBAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Global University Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward-1 Pan:Aaicg0020F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Suvibha Nolka राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/07/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. There Is A Delay Of 506 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Foundation. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Served With The Impugned Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Therefore, Due To The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, The Assessee

17. Now if we look into the statutory provisions, what is reflected is that the provisions under Section 119(2)(b) has been enacted with a specific purpose empowering the authorities concerned to condone the delay

REVANTH REDDY ANUMALA,BANJARA HILLS vs. A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

delay of 413 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and the same is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal: 1. “The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax- (Appeals)-11 (\"the Ld.CIT(A)\") without mentioning a valid computer generated Document Identification Number ('DIN') on the date of passing order

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

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Us: Ramulu Bandi, Hyderabad.

condone the inordinate delay involved in the appeal filed before him and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation. 16. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA Nos.1139 and 1140/Hyd/2024 17. On a perusal of the record, we find that in both the aforementioned matters, there was a delay in filing the respective appeals