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

KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

6.\n\"In N. Balakrishna (supra), it was reiterated that the\nword 'sufficient cause' should receive liberal construction\nand acceptability of the explanation is the criteria, and not\nthe length of delay as such by observing as under:\n\"In every case of delay there can be some lapse on the\npart of the litigant concerned. That alone

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

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

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

In the result, three appeals i

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

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

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

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

253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner\n(Appeals

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 253(3) 5 ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 of the IT Act, 1961 and the delay in filing the appeal of 2345 days was beyond the control of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee, accordingly, pleaded that the delay may please be condoned in the interest of substantial justice since the circumstances were beyond the control

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 253(3) 5 ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 of the IT Act, 1961 and the delay in filing the appeal of 2345 days was beyond the control of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee, accordingly, pleaded that the delay may please be condoned in the interest of substantial justice since the circumstances were beyond the control

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

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

6 of 11 ITA No 559 of 2019 D Pedda Reddaiah Kadapa. 21. Now, we come to the main reason i.e., the reason of delay shown for the rejection of the appeal through the impugned order. No doubt, the delay of 1902 days is a huge and enormous delay. But, when we look at the reasons given by the assessee

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

253 ITR 798held as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will

SRIMAD VIRAT POTTULURI VEERA BRAHMENDRA SWAMULA VARI MATTAM,CUDDAPAH vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1164/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2287/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Brahmendra Swamula Vari Exemption Ward, Chittoor, Mattam, Kadapa. Tirupati. Pan: Aagts2599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravindra Chenji, Advocate (Through Hybrid Mode) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Srimad Virat Pottuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamula Vari Mattam (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The

section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is to be construed liberally, such liberal approach cannot be extended to cases where the delay is the result of inaction, negligence, or lack of bona fides on the part of the litigant. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the assessee does not inspire confidence. The demise

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP") was commenced by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 3 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 15th November 2022 in the case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP") was commenced by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 3 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 15th November 2022 in the case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, these three appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1111, 1112 & 1113/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Gayatri Projects Limited, The Dcit, Hyderabad – 500 082. Vs. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan Aaacg8040K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri S Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP") was commenced by Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), 3 ITA.Nos.1111, 1112 and 1113/Hyd./2025 Hyderabad Bench vide order dated 15th November 2022 in the case of appellant company and Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who is required to manage the operations of company

SRISAILA KSHETRA YOGI VEMA REDDY NITHYANNADANA SATRAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Srisaila Kshetra Yogi Vema Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Reddy Nityannadana Satram, Tirupati. Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aadts7734G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gbs Maitreya Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

253 ITR 798held as under:"In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks

SUJALA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,NANDYAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay involved in filing of the appeal. 14. The assessee company has filed before us an application seeking admission of certain documents as additional evidence, as under: a. Cash sales details for Rs. 1.39 Crs. b. Summary of cash deposits [Rs. 8.65 Crs] and withdrawals from various banks [Rs. 12.59] c. Bank statements related to 8 Banks