1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1938/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 RAILONE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AAECR 2287 H VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI T. CHAITANYA KUMAR REVENUE BY: SRI SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY, DR DATE OF HEARING: 21/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 /02/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO.0026/DCIT - 3(1)/HYD /CIT(A) - 3/2017 - 18, DATED 20/07/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2014 - 15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON ACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERR ED IN DISMISSING AN APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS / MERITS OF CASE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED REASON DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL. 2 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY AS PRAYED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE RE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR 256 DAYS BECAUS E THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT INFORMED THE MANAGEMENT ABOUT THE RECE IPT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) E XPLAINING THE ABOVE STATED REASONS. THE LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION PETITION AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APP EAL BY HOLDING THAT THE RE IS NO TANGIBLE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADE D , THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND AR GUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF GIVING SUFFICIENT REASON / CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE DELAY OF 256 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD 3 OCCURRED DUE TO NO FAULT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE APPEAL BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE CASE ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LD. CIT (A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND MERIT AFTER AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020 OKK COPY TO: - 1) RAILONE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED C/O. T. CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, GOURI APARTMENT, URDULANE, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR. CIT - 3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE