The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT counsel for the Appeilant: sri A.v.A. siva Kartikeya representing Sri.SNVeerenderSingh counsel for the Respondent: sri. B. sapna Reddy (senior SC rncome Tax) I The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE I{IGH COURT FOR I'III], STATE OF TEI,ANGAN,{ .,.' YI)ERAB,\T) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOS HY ANT) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CtIAL,\I AT}II RAO ITTA No.202 of 2025 Datc: 11.12.2025 Betrvcen: M/s.Primary Agricultural Crcdit Society Limitcd, Bhongir. And The Incomc Tax Officer, Ward No. I . lncomc Tax Office, Suryapet. ,\ppollant . Rcspondents ORDER, (pcr llott'blc Sri.lr'r'ric,' l,.Son llo.sh.vt Heard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counscl representing Mr.S.N.Vcerender Singh, lcarnc't[ counsel tbr the r pel[ant and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Senior Standing Counsel I'or. Income'l'ax Departrnent, appearing for the rcspondent and pcruse(l the 1( :ord.

2. The instant is the appeal wliich has been fiIed assa I ng the orler dalecl 20.12.2024 passed by the lncorne Tax Appel z c Tribunal, Hyderabad-A Bench, IJyderabad (for shorr ..rhe ibunal") in ITA.No.836/Hyderabadl2024 lor thc assessrnent year 2() I - - B. Ilrlc the irnpugned order. the learned 'IribunaI has disrnissed the ap; :al prcfollecl \\ 2 -- \ -'1t"1 by the appettant affirming the order passed by Cotrunissioner of Incotne Tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT (Appeals)" dated 06.10.2023 in Appeat No.NFACl20 I 6- 17 I l0 I 2333 5.

3. The Tribunal has disrnissed the appeal on the ground of appeal being barred by linritation and the order under challenge before the Tribunal i.e. the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) was one which was disrnissed on the ground ol lirnitation.

4. Thc instant case. thr: Assessnlellt Offlcer had passed the assessment order for the asscsslnent year 2017-18 on 16.12.2019. The appeal before the CIT (Appeals) oue rvhich was filed with delay of 826 days on 21.04.2022. Since there was no plausible explanation provided by the appeltant, the CIT (Appeats) clisnrissed the appeal on the ground of delay vide the ordcr clated 06.10.2023. The order of CIT (Appeals) dated 06.t0.2023 was subsequcntly subjected to challenge by way of Incotne Tax Appeal before thc [ncoure 't'ax Appellate Tribunal which was registered as l1'A.No.836l|lyderabatll2}24 The said appeal was also filed with delay of 264 days. 'f hc l'ribunal vide the impugned order having not couvinced with thc cxplanatior.t provided by the appellant lor the inordinate delay in approaching the CIT (Appeals) as also the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground ol delay leading to filing of the instant appeal. I 3

5. At the oul_set, we are not in a position to enter int I the merits of the case for the reason that before both the statutory appcll te authorities stagc, the authorities have not gone into the merits, brrr lismissed the appeal on the ground ofdelay. Hencc, rve are compelled rr look into thc justification of explanation be provided by the appellanr irr the dclay that got caused both at the first instance of filing the app: I befbrc CI.l. (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal.

6. One of the main grounds which learned counsel lir- the appcllant has raised is a lact that in between because olCovitl_lt) p rndernic, Lhe appcllant was in fact not in a position to pursue the appr r cff.ectivclv. That if in terms of the ordcr passed by the Hon.ble Sup_r rle Court in Suo Moru Writ Petirion (Civil) No.3 ot2020,dated 08.01 : l2t. rhar lhe period lrom 15.03.2020 to 2g.02.2022 has ro be excludecl I I rhe purposc ofcounting the lirritation.'laking into account thc said suh r issi.n ol.the appellant, if we calculate the dclay excluding the period rL.l ccted above as per the order of the Hon'ble Supremc Court, the appea \as at delav of 59 days belorc the lockdown was imposed and anrt Lcr 52 dals subsequent to the Covid-19 pandemic period, in all there uc rld be dclav ofjust I I I days. I lowever, a perusal of the pleadings wou ( go to show that this ground of Covid- l9 pandernic was not raised bv r re appellant elfectively belore the CIT (Appeals), at the first instanc,.. rather thc\ have taken the other ground of certain tlevelopriEnts that r ok placc in 4 I befween, atl of which were during the Covid- 19 pandemic period' The High Court should have been acting libcralty in considering the condonation of delay petitions during Covid period' where the condone delay was sought on the basis ol the judgmcnt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aloresaid Suo Motu writ petition ln the instant case also' though, it was not raised at the first instance' but has been brought to the notice of the Bench by the learned counscl for the appellant at this juncturc, we are of thc considered opinion that had the appellant at that point of time taken this plca' tlcfinitetl' thc appellate authority would have decided with a diflercnt r:onsideration than which has now becn resorted to while disrnissing the appeat on 06 10'2023' We are' therefore, inclined at this juncture to grant one lnore opportunity to the appellant to contest the case on merits subicct to payment ofcosts'

7. Accordingly, upon payment of costs of Rs'25'000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the lclangana Statc Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within a period of iwo rvecks lrom today and upon lumishing receipt of deposit of costs' in the first appeal preferred by the appellant before thc .lurisdictional Assessing Officcr' let the 'iurisdictional Assessing Officer take steps lor nccessarv instructions for opening ol the Portal lor lresh submission ofthe appeal before the CIT (Appeals)' t IL

8. Since we are inclined to condone the delay for tl r reason stated .fribunal, above, thc impugned order of the Income Tax App,:l ate dated 20-12.2024, in ITA.No.836/Hyderabadl20Z4 also roLrtrl nor be sustainable and the sarne is accordingly set aside antj tlrc I iqinal Appcal stands restored. Further, the order passed in MA.No.3ilI .derabad/2025 decided on 20.01t.2025 also is liable to be set aside an<l r,corrlingly set aside. so also, rhe order dated 06.10.2023 passed by tlu: I If (Appeals), dated 06. 10.2023, in Appeal No.NFAC/2016_17rl0l2l ,.j-j. also on sinrilar tenns stands set aside and Ihe appeal stands r ,stored. .l.he cornrnissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) is further dirccrcc to crccitre trrc appcal on its own rnerits in accordance with [aw.

9. Accordingly, the Appeal stands allowed. No order. l i to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if anv shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// S D/. B.SATYAVATHI ,OINT REGISTRAR t- / SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'r\ Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) National Fac :lels Appeal Centre (NFAC) New Delhi.

3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-'1 ,Suryapet. 4 One CC to SRl. S N Veerender Singh Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. B. Sapna Reddy (Senior SC lncome Ta < Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies PR/PSL Ml O O t a t \ ,rrlE SiA JAN c ,0 ,i ',-11-' HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212025 ORDER lTTA.No.202 o12025 ALLOWING THE ITTA j\ \)'