DRB INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD. V. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD.

ITA 885/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves DRB Infrastructure (P) Ltd, which appealed against the order of the CIT (A) - NFAC Delhi concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the incorrect dismissal of their appeal due to non-compliance, as the assessee had inadvertently uploaded their response to a penalty appeal instead of the quantum appeal. The CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal citing non-filing of the response. The Tribunal acknowledged the inadvertent mistake and remanded the case for a fresh hearing, allowing the assessee to present their case correctly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714656 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained expenditure; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

" ITA No 885 of 2025 DRB Infrastructure P Ltd Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.885/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2018-19) DRB Infrastructure (P) Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AADCD7676H Vs. Dy.CIT Circle 8 (1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11/03/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order u/ s 250 dated 11-03-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, New Delhi is not correct either in law or on facts and in both. 2. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer merely on the grounds that no reply was filed, ignoring the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition without giving an opportunity for personal hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 885 of 2025 DRB Infrastructure P Ltd Page 2 of 4 3. A) The appellant had duly prepared and filed a detailed written submission along with the paper book for the present quantum appeal; however, due to an error, the same was mistakenly uploaded in response to the hearing notice issued in the penalty appeal proceedings for AY 2018-19, which were running in parallel pursuant to identically dated hearing notices. B) The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the ex-parte order citing nonfiling and the appellant up on realizing the mistake, filed on 13-03-2025, an online rectification application vide acknowledgement no. 900954290130325, explaining the error along with written submissions, which remains pending disposal till date. 4. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in upholding the disallowance of sub-contract expenditure of Rs. 1,43,31,846/- u/s 690 as unexplained expenditure, ignoring the genuineness of the expenditure. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above ground (grounds).” 3. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance of the notices. He has pointed out that in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed the reply on 04/03/2025. However, due to the reasons that the learned CIT (A) has issued 2 notices of same date i.e. 24/02/2025 in the quantum appeal as well as in the penalty appeal, there is a bonafide mistake in the reply uploaded by the assessee as the document reference ID mentioned was that of notice issued in the penalty appeal and therefore, the reply was uploaded in the penalty appeal instead of quantum appeal. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act but there is no order passed by the learned CIT (A) on the rectification petition. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that it is a bonafide Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 885 of 2025 DRB Infrastructure P Ltd Page 3 of 4 inadvertent mistake while submitting the reply in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT (A) due to the reason that 2 appeals were pending before the learned CIT (A) and the reply was mistakenly uploaded in the proceedings of the penalty appeal instead of quantum appeal. He has referred to the 2 notices issued by the learned CIT (A) both dated 24/02/2025 and the reply dated 04/03/2025 wherein the document reference ID as mentioned pertains to the penalty appeal u/s 271AAC(1) instead of the quantum appeal. Thus, he has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply and documents filed by the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has fairly submitted that in view of the inadvertent mistake, the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A). 5. Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the record, at the outset we note that the learned CIT (A) has issued 2 notices dated 24/02/2025, one in case of appeal against the assessment order and the another in case of appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed the reply as uploaded on 04/03/2025 along with the paper book. However, the document reference ID No. is given in the said reply of penalty appeal. Therefore, it is manifest from the record that due to the wrong document ID reference No.mentioned in the reply at the time of uploading the said reply did not reach to the learned CIT (A) in the quantum appeal and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of notice. Accordingly, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 885 of 2025 DRB Infrastructure P Ltd Page 4 of 4 in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit the relevant details reply and evidence. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing i.e. on 6th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 6th August, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 DRB Infrastructure (P) Ltd c/o Katrapati & Associates, 1-1- 298/2/B/3 Sowbhagya Avenue Apts, 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar, Street No.1 Hyderabad 500020 2 Dy.CIT, Circle 8(1) Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Garden, Kondapur Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "