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

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

30 days from the order under section 143(1). The appellant has filed appeal on 29.05.2020 against the intimation under section 143(1) dated 25.03.2016. It is found that the appeal is filed after lapse of 1491 days hence, before deciding the issue on merit, the reasons for delay in filing of appeal is to be decided. In the letter

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

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

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

30 Тахтап 133 considered the\ndelay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and\nreasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal\nwithin the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court\ncondoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When\ncompared to 21 years of delay considered by the Court

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

30 days from date of service as per section 249(2) of the Act and any delay therein may be condoned

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

30'", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, Ravi Rishi Educational Society, filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2017-2018, and 2020-2021. The appeals mainly concerned the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act due to delayed filing of the audit report (Form 10B) and penalty

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

In the result, three appeals i

30,364/-\ndue to non-filing of the audit report in Form-10B/10BB.\nAggrieved by the Order of the CPC dated 12.02.2022 passed\nu/sec.143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before\nthe learned CIT(A) but could not succeed as the appeal of the\nassessee was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on the ground\nthat

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

30'", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, an educational society, appealed against orders denying exemption and levying penalties. The denial of exemption was primarily due to the delayed filing of the audit report (Form 10B), with the delay attributed to the search operation and the COVID-19 pandemic. The penalty was levied under Section 271D for alleged violations of Section 269SS regarding

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

30'", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, an educational society, filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) that denied exemption claims due to delayed filing of audit reports (Form 10B). The assessee also faced penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for alleged violations of Section 269SS.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form

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

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)

Section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days, i.e., on or before 20.05.2021. However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 810 days. 5.2 The appellant sought condonation

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing

SURESH SAMAT HUF,SECUNDERABAD vs. DCIT, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

condonation of delay of 2892 days (after excluded 30 days as per section 249(2)( b) of the Act) in the filing