IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.21 of 2026 DATE: 09.03.2026 Between :

Ravi Kumar Kandala.

…Appellant AND The Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(6), Hyderabad, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana.

…Respondent JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 10.06.2025, in ITA No.333/Hyd/2025, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad, (for short the ‘Tribunal’) for the assessment year 2011-12.

2. Heard Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the appellant; and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Tribunal has rejected an appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of it being barred by limitation.

4. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal are that the Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order under Section 143(1) of the Act against the appellant on 31.03.2014 raising a net demand of Rs.10,43,210/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The said appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was filed with a delay of 142 days, which subsequently stood condoned. However, subsequently when the appeal was taken up for hearing, as there was no representation on behalf of the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in spite of repeated opportunities being given, upholding the assessment order, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the statutory appeal vide order dated 06.01.2017. Though the appeal stood dismissed on 06.01.2017 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 25.02.2025 with a delay of 2913 days. Along with the appeal, the appellant had also filed a condone delay petition seeking condonation of delay of 2913 days. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal also rejected the condone delay petition and as a consequence the appeal preferred by the appellant also stood dismissed. It is this dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant which has led to filing to filing of the instant appeal.

5. The question of law raised by the appellant in the present appeal is “whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the condone delay petition condoning the delay of 2913 days in preferring the appeal under Section 253 of the Act?”

6. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that there was no effective service of notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before dismissing the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant after the appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) challenging the assessment order, no notices were issued to the consultant whose address was given for service of notice. As such, the consultant could not follow up the appeal effectively. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the notice sent by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was at the earlier residence of the appellant which he had subsequently changed, as in between, he had lost his father at whose house he was residing and which he had vacated and shifted to new premises.

7. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that neither the service was affected upon the consultant, nor was it affected upon the appellant. That the decision rendered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 06.01.2017 could not be challenged within a reasonable time, and it only recently in January, 2025 that he came to know about the p