DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTUREPRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

D S R INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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

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

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERBAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

APMDC SCCL SULIYARI COAL COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1501, 1514, 1515 & 1529/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Ay: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Apmdc Sccl Suliyari Coal Vs. Dcit, Company Limited, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aalca9755A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs.23,62,299/-. 28. Aggrieved, the assessee company assailed the order passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A). As the assessee company had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A) by 663 days, therefore, the latter rejected the explanation of the assessee company and declined

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

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

penalty u/s 234B of the Act by observing that the cash seized should have been adjusted against the self assessment tax payable with the return of income. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that interest charged u/s 234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserves

NARSINGA RAO ALETI,NALGONDA vs. ITO., WARD-1, SURYAPET

Bench: Us:

u/s 271(1)(c) are pending in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 6. The learned Commissioner posted the case fixing the date of hearing on 12.08.2025, however, erred in dismissing the appeal

KERELE BALWANTH REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act only on the ground that the quantum appeal of the assessee has been dismissed, but the fact remains that the CIT(A) has not examined the addition made by the A.O towards cash deposit to allege that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed particulars

KERELE BALWANTH REDDY,RANGA REDDY vs. I.T.O., WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & Explained The Reasons For Delay. Shri, S.K. Gupta, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Referring To The Petition Filed By The Assessee Submitted That, Although The Assessee Has Paid Appeal Fees On 5/10/2023 & Filed Relevant Form- 36 On 06/10/2023 But, Because Of Certain Errors In Digital Signature Certificate (In Short “Dsc”), The Form-36 Could Not Be Uploaded. However, The Assessee Has Obtained Dsc & Filed Digitally Signed Form- 36 On 10/01/2025 With A Delay Of 437 Days. The Said Delay Is Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. He Therefore Submitted That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor For Want Of Any Undue Benefit. Therefore, In The Interest Of Justice, The Delay May Be Condoned.

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act only on the ground that the quantum appeal of the assessee has been dismissed, but the fact remains that the CIT(A) has not examined the addition made by the A.O towards cash deposit to allege that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed particulars