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

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assuming for a moment, the assessee came to know the assessment order passed by the A.O only on 25/03/2022, but fact remains that still there is a delay of more than one year from the date she claimed to have received the assessment order or came to know about

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeal. The relevant portion of the said application reads as under : “…… 8. Appeal of the assessee has been allowed and the penalty levied u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of appeal. The relevant portion of the said application reads as under : “…… 8. Appeal of the assessee has been allowed and the penalty levied u/s 271

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

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

In the result, three appeals i

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11.\nWithout prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.\n12.1.\n12.2.\n12. Appellant

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

condone delay\nin filing Form 10B.\n11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been\nduly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account\nwhich is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed.\n12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

SITARAMA RAO AVVA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1368/Hyd/2024 To 1373/Hyd/2024 & 1375/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2015-16) Sitarama Rao Avva Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle-2(4) Pan : Abspa6536E Hyderabad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is no more in existence, then the confirmation of the penalty is unjustified and highly arbitrary. He has further submitted that before the Ld.CIT(A), the case was not properly represented on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has declined to condone the delay

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

u/s 12AA of the Act. In that case, the Hon'ble High\nCourt has held that no doubt, the delay has to be explained with\nproper reasons but it does not mean that every day's delay must\nbe explained. The Court must take a pragmatic view in\nappreciating the reasons attributable to the delay caused to the\nparty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on 20.2.2024 and this has come to the knowledge of the assessee in the second week of March, 2024.. Copy of the penalty order is annexed. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Chartered Accountant towards end of April, 2024 and got the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) down loaded

RAASI REFRACTORIES LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16

penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 16 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application explaining the reasons for the delay and sought condonation

KAMALA SHIVA KUMAR,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”. 2. We notice at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 353 days delay in filing. To this effect, the assessee filed petition for condonation of the said delay therein, inter-alia that due to the ill health during the relevant period, caused