##PAGE1##

आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

(cid:373)ी रिवश सूद,(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एव ं(cid:373)ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद(cid:735) सम(cid:407) |

Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D

Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member

आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 327/Hyd/2026 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Shri Ravinder Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Munugala, HYDERABAD Ward 8 (1)

PAN: AIRPR2907C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: CA C Maheshwar Reddy

राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04/08/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2026

आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ravinder Reddy Munugala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated

12.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred CIT(A),NFAC erred on facts and in law while dismissing the appeal.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in appreciating the facts of the case of the appellant.

2

3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in upholding the additions Rs.2,91,13,203/- u/s. 69A of the act.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) out to have observed that cash deposits were out of the advances received from customers and

the same cannot be treated as unexplained.

5. The Appellant craves to add/leave/alter/modify any other ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 19.11.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. However, there was a delay of about 27 months in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Simultaneously, the Ld. CIT(A) also proceeded to adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits as

well.

4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”), inviting our attention to para no. 1.8 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, he nevertheless proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. According to the Ld. AR, once the appellate authority enters into the merits of the controversy, it amounts to an implied condonation of delay. In support of the above proposition, reliance was placed on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Nafees Sultana Vs. ITO, ITA No. 642/Hyd/2025 for Assessment

Year 2014-15, order dated 28.04.2025.

3

5. The Ld. AR further submitted that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was decided ex parte without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim by filing relevant documentary evidence and written submissions. It was also submitted that since the assessment itself had been completed ex parte under section 144 of the Act, the matter may be restored directly to the file of the Ld. AO instead of the

Ld. CIT(A).

6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and opposed the request for restoration of the

matter to the file of the Ld. AO.

7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the case law relied upon. We find considerable force in the submissions of the Ld. AR. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that although the Ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal was barred by limitation and declined to condone the delay, he nevertheless proceeded to examine and adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. We h