KNR GVR JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD V. ACIT., CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 211/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The KNR GVR Joint Venture appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution. The Joint Venture, comprising KNR Constructions Limited and GVR Infra Projects Limited, faced administrative disruptions due to the insolvency proceedings of GVR Infra Projects Limited. This disruption led to a failure in managing legal and tax matters, resulting in a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was initially filed 317 days late. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay plausible and condoned it, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The Tribunal also noted that the issues involved had not been adjudicated on merits due to the ex parte nature of the previous assessments and appeals.

• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Hyderabad
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Gayatri Projects Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.1111 to 1113/Hyd/2025 dated 10.12.2025)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Procedural lapse
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 1 of 7 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.211/Hyd/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18) KNR GVR Joint Venture Hyderabad PAN: AAAAK8834H Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 18/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by KNR GVR Joint Venture (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 15.01.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 2 of 7 2. At the outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 317 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee is a joint venture between KNR Constructions Limited and GVR Infra Projects Limited. It was submitted that during the relevant period, one of the constituents of the assessee, namely GVR Infra Projects Limited, was admitted into insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), and a final resolution order was passed. The Ld. AR submitted that due to the said NCLT proceedings, the entire business operations of the assessee came to a standstill. It was also submitted that all employees of GVR Infra Projects Limited who were managing the legal and tax matters of the assessee left the organization. Consequently, the assessee could not effectively monitor or pursue its income tax matters. It was further submitted that the assessee came to know about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) only upon receipt of a notice dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Revenue in connection with penalty proceedings. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took necessary steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 3 of 7 decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gayatri Projects Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.1111 to 1113/Hyd/2025 dated 10.12.2025). 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for such a long delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the affidavit filed by the assessee. We find that the delay in the present case has occurred due to exceptional circumstances arising out of insolvency proceedings before the NCLT in the case of one of the constituents of the assessee, which resulted in complete disruption of its business operations and administrative set-up. We further find that the explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and supported by the surrounding circumstances. It is a settled principle of law that when sufficient cause is shown, a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning the delay so as to advance substantial justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay of 317 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Assessing officer is erroneous both on facts and in law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 4 of 7 2. The Assessing officer is not justified in completing the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. 3. The Assessing officer erred in rejecting the book results and in estimating the income at 8% of the gross receipts without considering the fact that proper books of account were maintained and that no estimation need be made. 4. The appellant is executing the same project since 2008. The appellant has never executed the project and the entire project was executed by one of the Joint venture partner M/s GVR Infra Projects Limited since 2008. From the inception of the project, the return of income of the appellant has been filed based on the commission offered by the GVR Infra Projects limited who is the executing party of the Joint Venture. Whatever the commission offered by the executing party as per MOU since the inception offered as the income and no expenditure was claimed. Hence adoption of a percentage on the Turnover does not arrive in this case. 5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 6. 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 (“the Act”) dated 30.11.2019 for the Assessment Year 2017–18. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that due to the circumstances explained in the condonation petition, particularly the insolvency proceedings before the NCLT involving Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 5 of 7 one of the constituents of the assessee, the entire administrative and legal framework of the assessee was severely disturbed. The Ld. AR further submitted that due to such disruption, the assessee could not effectively pursue the proceedings before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, the assessment as well as the appellate order were passed ex parte. The Ld. AR submitted that the issues involved in the appeal have not been adjudicated on merits and therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present its case before the Ld. AO. It was accordingly prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that sufficient opportunity had already been provided to the assessee during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to avail such opportunities and therefore, the orders passed by the lower authorities should be upheld. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non- prosecution. We have also taken note of the fact that the assessee is a joint venture and one of its constituents was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the NCLT during the relevant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 6 of 7 period, which resulted in disruption of its business operations and administrative control. In our considered view, the reasons explained by the assessee for non-compliance before the lower authorities appear to be plausible and constitute sufficient cause. We further find that the issues involved in the present appeal could not be examined on merits. It is a settled principle that a litigant should not be denied an opportunity of being heard on merits due to technical or procedural lapses, particularly when sufficient cause is demonstrated. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to examine the issues afresh and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all necessary details as may be required by the Ld. AO. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 25th March, 2026. Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 211 of 2025 KNR GVR Joint Venture Page 7 of 7 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 KNR GVR JOINT VENTURE NO.301,10-5-35 QUALITY RESIDENCY ,AHMED NAGAR MASAB TANK HYDERABAD 500028 2 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) Kondapur, Sy.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp: Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT – Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order 1. Draft dictated on 20th March, 2026 2. Draft placed before author -do- 3 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.P.S./PS 24/03/2026 4. Kept for pronouncement on 25/03/2026 5. File sent to the Bench Clerk -do- 6. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 7. Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI Date: 2026.03.26 11:44:53 +05'30' "