Ravinder Reddy Munugala Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Hyderabad ITAT: Once CIT(A) Decides Appeal on Merits, Delay Is Deemed to Have Been Impliedly Condoned
The Hyderabad ITAT in Ravinder Reddy Munugala v. ITO, ITA No. 327/Hyd/2026, AY 2017-18, dealt with an appeal involving an addition of ₹2.91 crore under Section 69A. The assessee’s first appeal was filed with a delay of about 27 months. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, but at the same time proceeded to adjudicate and dismiss the case on merits as well.
The ITAT held that once the appellate authority proceeds to examine and decide the appeal on merits despite refusing to condone the delay, the delay must be treated as having been impliedly condoned. It followed its earlier decision in Nafees Sultana v. ITO and the Madras High Court judgment in Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 560 (Mad.).
The Tribunal further observed that the CIT(A) had decided the matter ex parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to produce documentary evidence and submissions. It therefore set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
Cases Discussed:
- Nafees Sultana Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad), ITA No. 642/Hyd/2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15, order dated 28.04.2025
- Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs. CIT (Madras High Court), (2002) 256 ITR 560 (Mad.)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
