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

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 249(2) of the Act, hence the Delay cannot be condoned, and appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication hence rendered as inadmissible. 4

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

249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised by the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case NTPC vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, we hereby admit the ground raised by the assessee. 5. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux

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

249(3) of the Act.” 4. Since, this is a legal ground raised by the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case NTPC vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, we hereby admit the ground raised by the assessee. 5. The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however, the crux

ADARSH MEDICAL HALL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.287/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adarsh Medical Hall Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-7(1) [Pan :Aagfa5186R] Hyderabad

4. After hearing both the sides, we condone delay in filing the appeal and admit appeal for disposal in the interest of justice. 3 Adarsh Medical Hall 5. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of data analytics and information gathered during the phase of online verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’, the Income Tax Department gathered

VASAVI CLUB,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay and the submissions made by the assessee, and after taking note of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307 (SC), held that, even after excluding the Covid- 19 period, there was an effective delay of 526 days in filing the appeal

MALIREDDI SRINATH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), HDYERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay and the submissions made by the assessee, held that the appeal was filed 4 Malreddy Srinath beyond the period prescribed under Section 249

KARIMNAGAR MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KARIMNAGAR

section 249 of the Act, and after condoning the delay disposed of\nthe appeal on merits. Also, we find that the CIT(A) had though\nobserved that the explanation of the assessee company regarding the\ndelay in filing the appeal before him was being rejected as it was not\ncorroborated with supporting documentary evidence, but we find that\nthere

SINGIRIKONDA RAVINDER (HUF), SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

RAMULAMMA SINGIRIKONDA, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

SINGIRIKONDA RAVINDER,SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

SINGIRIKONDA VAMSIKRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

SINGIRIKONDA INDUMATHI, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

SINGIRIKONDA INDUMATHI, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

SINGIRIKONDA KARUNA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other

S. PRADEEP KUMAR, SURYAPET,SURYAPET vs. ITO, SURYAPET, SURYAPET

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyappellant Respondent

section 249(4) is applicable. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the tax payable as per the valid return of income has already been paid and therefore the appeal is admissible. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered each ground of appeal separately without dismissing the appeal in limine. 6. Any other