IVI/s ft4andava Holdings Private Limited v. 1. The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax (Central)

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 800 days in filing the above ITTA challenging the Order in ITA No.27lHydl2O22, daled 26.09.2022 lor A.Y.2017-18 on the file of lncome Tax Appeilate Tribunal and the appeal may be heard on merits and this l-lon'ble Court. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N. Praveen Reddy (Senior Standing Counsel for lT Department) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER --7 HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO IA.No.2 of 2o25 in/ and ITfA.No.39 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1r'er the Hon'irlc Si Jtstice SrtddaLe Chatapathi Ro.o) This applicatior.r is filed to condone the delay of (800) days in filing the appeal against the order, dt.26.O9.2O22 in ITA.No.27/Hydl2O22 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal HvderzLbad, Benches "8", Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') for the assessntent year 2017 -18.

2. The reasons mentioned by the petitioner-Company in the affidavit filed in support of this application, is that a former emplovee of the appellant failed to inform about passing of the orders by the Tribunal and sending the sajd frle to their Auditor, to his successor. That, only in the month of August, 2024, ttpon enquiry regarding the progress of the appeal, it came to light that the appeal papers were untraceable in the auditor's office, and subsequently, the _\,.!,-'tsB 'l -- .l l auditor informed that the papers had been inadvertently misplaced in his office and, therefore, could not be forwarded to the appellant for obtaining the signature of the authorized signatory, due to w-hich, there is delay in filing of the appeal. It is further contended that the delay is neither willful nor wantorr, but it had occurre.f due to the above stated facts and circumstances, and prayed to condone the delay in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the I-irr,itation Act, 1963.

3. The respondents/ Rcvcnue filed counter inter alia stating that the present application is filed with abnormal delay and no sufficient cause and reasons are mentioned, alcl that the explanation given by the petitioner/ appellant, that a former emplol.ee, who u'as looking aftel the t;ui appeals, resigned without informing her srlcr:essor ns to the sending of appeal papers to the ar.rditor an<l that the said papers were misplaced in the auditor's office, arr d only in the month of Augrrst, 2O24, tbey could trace the appeal papers, is nothing but an afterthought, and the said reasons are routine and stock reasons.

4. It is further stated that the impugned order is a common order for the assessnrent vears 2016-17 and 2077 - 18, and the petitioner/ appellant having filed a writ petition uide WP.No.2l77O of 2O24 before this Court for the assessrnent year 2016 17, now cannot conteud that the previous employee has not informcd about the said hie to the SUCCESSOT.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant, while reiterating the averments in ttre affidavit filcd in support of this application, placed reliance on the decision ol the Honble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Others u. M/s Katiji & Othersl and prayed for condonatlon of delay in prefcrring the appcal.

6. Per contra, Sri N.Plaveen Reddy, learned Senior Stancling Counsel for Income Tax appearing lor respondents submitted that the delay of (800) days sought to be condoned is inordinate and the reasons rnentionecl in the application ' 167 ITR a;t : (19s7) 2 scc to7 l does not entitle the petitioner/ appellant for condonation of such abnormal and inordinate delav. 7 . As seen from the record, admittedly, the judgment in the underlying Income Ta-x Appeal u,as passed on26.O9.2022, and the present appeal rvas filed only on 11.O3.2025 i.e., with a delay of almost (29) months and reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are not satisfactory for the reason that the petitioner/ appellant having preferred a writ petition ln respect of the assessment yeat 2016-17 against the common order passed for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, did not choose to fi1e appeal for the assessment year 2OI7 - I B, *'ithin the prescribed period of time. As such, in our considered opinion, the petitioner/ appellant has not shos'n any justihable grounds lor condoning the delay.

8. Further, the decision relicd upon by petitioner/ appellant I t-l Kotiji's COSC (supra) 1S distinguishable, in the light of the decisions rendered by the i Apex Court rn Pathapati Subba Red"dg (Died) bg Lcgal Representatiues & Others v. Speciag Deputg Collector (LA)2 and Estate OfJicer, Hanyana Urban Deaelopment Autlrcritg & Another a. Gopi Chsnd Atreja3.

9. In the l(ati/t's case (supra}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on thc principle of equality ald fairness, held that no discrimination should be made merely because State is seeking condorLation of deiay. Contrary thereto, in Po:tho,pati Subba Reddg (Died)'s case(stipra), the A^prex Court held that condonation of delal' cannot bc granted on equ itable considerations or on grounds oI hzr::dship, and that a right or remedy not exercised or ar';riled within thc prescribed period \ i or for a prolonged period, must come to an end or ccase to \ exist. Similarly, 1n Gopi Chand Atrejo's case(supra), the Apex Court vr,hile observing that the appellant's officers in charge of legal cell, failed to discharge their duties promptly and u,ith due diligence, despite availability of all facilities and 1- 1zoZl7 tl. Supreme Coun Cases -13(r ' (2019) { Supremc Coun Cases 612 I I 6 infrastructures, held that the delay u.as not su fficientlv explained

10. In view of the above judicial precedents of the Ho"ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered vier.r, that the petitioner/appellant has not made out any grounds for condoning the delay ol (800) da.,s in prelerring the appeal, and thus, the interlocutory application is liable to be rejected. 1 1. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application uide IA.No.2 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequentl',,, the ITTA stands rejected. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed / //TRUE COPY/1 SD/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM (For His LordshiP's kind Perusal) SHY One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To,

1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Benches "8" Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri P. Soma Shekar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N. Praveen Reddy (Senior Standing Counsel for lT Department) [OPUC]

4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad.

7. Two CD Copies Kar sa P HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.2 of 2025 in/and ITTA.No.39 of 2025 t i$i. .) lHE S 3 1 JAil 2{126 z * * l.A.No.2 ot 20251S DISMISSED & ITTA STANDS REJECTED (v\