IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2008-2009 The ACIT, Circle-2(1), EMMAR Hills Township Hyderabad – 500 084. vs. Private Limited, Hyderabad.

Telangana. PIN – 500 032. Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

For Revenue : Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR For Assessee : CA, K C Devdas Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :

The above appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order dated 14.03.2023 of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2008-2009.

2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue has filed an affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the records were not readily available with this office and, therefore, it took time to retrieve the records in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-2009. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. CA, K C Devadas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay. He submitted that, it is the settled position of law that, condoning the delay is the discretionary power of the Court/Tribunal and unless and until there is a ‘sufficient cause’ to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, the Court/Tribunal shall not exercise it’s discretionary power for condonation of delay. Since, in the instant appeal, the Revenue has not brought on record ‘sufficient cause’, the delay of 96 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal ought not to have been condoned. He, accordingly, pleaded that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should not be condoned and the appeal be treated as un-admitted in the interest of justice.

4. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Revenue-appellant. We find that, the reasons explained by the Revenue in it’s affidavit are seems to be genuine and bonafide by taking note of retrieving the records of old case pertains to assessment year 2008-2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisituon vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down certain principles for condoning the delay and also directed the lower courts to follow a lenient approach for condoning the delay. Going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra), there is no dispute if an appeal is dismissed on account of technicalities, a meritorious case may be thrown-out of judicial review. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the courts must have a liberal approach or lenient approach considering the reasons given by the petitioners or appellants. Therefore, going by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra) and also considering the submissions of the Revenue, we condone the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal of the Revenue for adjudication.

5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee- company M/s. EMMAR Hills Township Private Limited [in short “EHTPL”] is engaged in the business of integrated township development, filed it’s return of income for the assessment year 2008-2009 on 29.09.2008, declaring total loss of Rs.38,37,418/-. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] and notice u/sec.148 dated 13.05.2010 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act, the assessee vide letter dated 26.05.2010 filed on 08.06.2010, filed copy of the ITR-V as a token of return filed on 29.09.2008 for the assessment year 2008-2009. Further, the assessee requested to treat the aforesaid return of income as filed in compliance to the notice u/sec.148 of the Act and requested to pro