NEETHA PULASANI,RANGA REDDY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

MA 71/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Neetha Pulasani, who filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had dismissed her earlier appeal as withdrawn. This withdrawal was initially due to her opting for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, which she later failed to comply with financially, leading to the rejection of her application under the scheme. The Tribunal dismissed her Miscellaneous Application on the grounds of it being time-barred and not meeting the criteria for recall under the specified section of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783627 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Mr. Abdul Subhan vs. ACIT, CIT vs. Shyam Sundar Lal Sharma, Esha Media Research Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahesh Goud Voruganti vs. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Bonafide belief; Period of limitation; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

"1 आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.71/Hyd/2025 आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1033/Hyd/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Neetha Pulasani. R/o.Ranga Reddy District. PAN : AFNPP6473J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रयतयनयित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate. राजस्व का प्रयतयनयित्व/ Department Represented by : Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR (Appeared through HYBRID Mode) सुनवाई समाप्त होने की यतयथ/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 31.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2025 O R D E R प्रयत मंजूनाथ जी./PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. The assessee has filed the present Miscellaneous Application (in short, “M.A.”) u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 2 Act”) against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 dated 25.08.2021 pertains to the assessment year A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee are reproduced as under : “1. The Applicant respectfully submits this Miscellaneous Application restoration of appeal, seeking recall of the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 25.08.2021 in ITA No. 1033/Hyd/2019, whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the assessee opting for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (DTVSVS 2020). 2. The Hon'ble Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, had graciously recorded that liberty was reserved to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for revival of the appeal in case the settlement under the DTVSVS was not accepted or was rejected on technical grounds. 3. The assessee had duly filed the required Forms 1 & 2 under the DTVSVS 2020 and even received Form-3. However, owing to acute financial hardship and paucity of funds, the assessee could not remit the determined sum within the prescribed time, leading to rejection of the application. 4. Thereafter, in good faith and with a genuine desire to settle the dispute, the assessee once again approached the Department under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, by filing Form-1 vide Acknowledgement No. 797904710311224 dated 31.12.2024. Unfortunately, this application too was rejected by the authorities on 12.03.2025 on technical grounds, since no appeal was deemed pending as on the relevant date. 5. It is humbly submitted that during this entire interregnum from 25.08.2021 till 12.03.2025, the assessee was bona fide pursuing remedies under successive DTVSV Schemes, and therefore, could not earlier approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for recall. The lapse of time was not due to negligence or disregard of law but solely because the assessee was genuinely attempting to obtain relief under the beneficial settlement schemes introduced by the Legislature. 6. The Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai Bench, in Mr. Abdul Subhan vs. ACIT (MA No.92/Chny/2022 dated 24.02.2023), held in para 4 that when the assessee's application under the DTVSVS failed on account of inability to meet statutory conditions, the liberty granted by the Tribunal must be honoured, and the appeal restored. The Tribunal observed that such failure is not fatal, and justice demands that the appeal be recalled and adjudicated on merits. 7. The Applicant submits that the present case is on identical footing. Since the DTVSVS 2020 application and subsequently the DTVSVS 2024 application both failed, the appeal which was dismissed only conditionally deserves to be recalled in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 3 8. The Hon'ble Courts have consistently held that beneficial legislation such as settlement schemes must be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee (CIT vs. Shyam Sundar Lal Sharma [2015] 229 Taxman 448 (SC)). 9. In the instant case, the Applicant has throughout acted with bona fides and diligence, seeking to avail settlement under successive Government Schemes instead of burdening judicial forums. The Applicant is a law-abiding citizen and individual taxpayer, who, due to financial adversity and technical reasons, could not complete the scheme requirements. To now deprive her of adjudication on merits would amount to gross injustice. In view of the facts narrated above and the judicial precedents cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: • Recall its order dated 25.08.2021 in ITA No. 1033/Hyd/2019; • Restore the appeal of the assessee to its original position for hearing and disposal on merits; • Condone the lapse of period between 25.08.2021 and 12.03.2025, considering that the applicant was bona fide pursuing remedies under successive DTVSV Schemes; • And pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue Dr Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R. on the other hand, opposed the Miscellaneous Application, contending that, once the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to the assessee’s option under the DTVSV Scheme, 2020, the order had attained finality. The subsequent failure of the assessee to comply with the scheme conditions cannot be a ground for recall, as it is not a case of mistake apparent on record which can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. It was therefore prayed that the Miscellaneous Application be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. Admittedly, M.A. filed by the assessee is barred by 1274 days, for Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 4 which the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing of the application and claimed that, the assessee has withdrawn the appeal filed before the Tribunal on the ground that, he wish to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (DTVSVS 2020) and filed an application. However, due to financial constraints, the taxes could not be paid and because of this, the application filed by the assessee has been rejected by the designated authority. He further referring to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 25.08.2021 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 submitted that, the Tribunal has given liberty to the assessee to file an application for restoration of the appeal in the event the application is rejected by the designated authority under DTVSVS 2020 for any reasons. We find that, the Tribunal has given liberty to the assessee for restoration of appeal only in case, the application filed by the assessee is rejected on technical grounds. In the present case, the application field by the assessee has been rejected for non-payment of taxes and it is purely on the mistake of assessee. Therefore, the liberty given by the Tribunal for restoration of appeal does not applicable to the assessee. Further, as per the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act, M.A. should be filed within six months from the end of month in which the order of the Tribunal is received by the assessee. In the present case, since the assessee has filed the M.A. beyond the due date provided under Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 5 Section 254(2) of the Act, that too after 1274 days and further, there is no provision under the Act, for condonation of the delay in filing of M.A., in our considered view, the M.A. filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed. The assessee has relied upon certain judicial precedents, including the decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Mr. Abdul Subhan Vs. ACIT (M.A.No.92/Chny/2022, dated 24.02.2023) and we find that, the above case laws are not applicable to the facts of the present case and thus, rejected. 5. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the order of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Esha Media Research Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax Officer (M.A.Nos.65 and 66/Hyd/2024 in ITA Nos.28 and 29/Hyd/2020, dt.20.02.2024) where under identical set of facts, the Tribunal rejected the M.A. filed by the assessee beyond the due date provided under the Act. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under : “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. This Tribunal vide order dated 7/6/2021 has recorded the request of the assessee and then allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals in Para 2 to 4 as under: “2. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representatives of the respective assessees submitted that the assessee do not want to pursue the appeals as they have already filed forms I & II under the “Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020” and yet to receive Form 3 from the Department. Therefore, consequent to the same, the assessees desires to withdraw the appeals before the Tribunal. Hence it was pleaded that the appeals of the assessees may be treated as withdrawn. Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 6 3. The learned DR conceded to the request of the learned ARs. 4. After hearing both the parties, according to the request of the assessees and their learned ARs, we hereby allow the appeals of the assessees to be withdrawn. We also make it clear that the assessees shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal within the stipulated time as provided under the Act, in order to reinstate the appeals, if their applications with respect to Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme are rejected”. 5. Thus, it is clear that the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 to settle the tax disputes in the appeals for the A.Ys 2012-13 & 2013-14 and consequently sought permission to withdraw the appeals filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 7/6/2021 allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals and consequently dismissed the appeals of the assessee as withdrawn with a liberty to the assessee to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement of the appeals in case the declaration made to settle the disputes under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme are rejected. Form No.3 was issued by the designated authority on 15/04/2021 and 13/04/2021, but the assessee decided not to pay the tax amount determined by the designated authority under VSVS 2020. Thus, it is clear that in the month of April, 2021, the assessee decided not to go ahead with the settlement of disputes under VSVS 2020 and consequently, the demand of tax for the A.Ys 2012-13 & 2013-14 remained outstanding. The assessee has filed these 2 Miscellaneous Applications on 30/12/2024 for recalling of the earlier order and revival of the appeals after more than 3 years or 1300 days from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Thus, there is an inordinate delay and latches in filing these 2 Miscellaneous Applications by the assessee without even filing any application for condonation of delay to explain a reasonable/sufficient cause for such delay. The assessee has simply relied upon the provisions of DTVSVS Act 2020 and, particularly section 4(2) as well as sec4(6) of the said Act and submitted that once the declaration under VSVS Scheme 2020 becomes void and deemed as never to have been made, the appeals of the assessee would automatically get revived. We do not agree with this contention of the assessee due to the reason that proceedings in the case were not pending before the tax authorities but the appeals were pending before this Tribunal and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the order of this Tribunal. Therefore, the rejection of the application for settlement of dispute under VSVS 2020 would not automatically restore the appeals of the assessee until and unless the same is brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the affected party. Though the provisions of DT VSVS Act, 2020 provides a right to the assessee to get the proceedings revived, but until and unless the assessee brings this development of rejection of the declaration under VSVS 2020 to the notice of the Tribunal, it will not have an effect of automatic revival of the appeals. The learned AR has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in case of Mahesh Goud Voruganti vs. Income Tax Officer (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held in paras 14 to 17 as under: “14. Admittedly, the Tribunal vide order dated 20-1-2021 granted liberty to the petitioner herein to approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal in case application submitted by the petitioner under DTVSV scheme is rejected. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal had referred to section 254(2) of the Act while dismissing M.A.No.52/Hyd/20223, Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 7 construing the time limit as six months as stipulated under section 254(2) of the Act. Section 254(2) of the Act stipulates that an application to rectification has to be filed within a period of six months from the date of order. Section 254(2) is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. \"S.254. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.— (*1)************** *************** (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within2[six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed], with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-section on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty rupees.\" 15. In considered opinion of this Bench, section 254(2) of the Act has no application to the petition filed by the petitioner, which was filed for revival of the appeal. Therefore, rectification of an order and revival of an appeal are different and cannot be equated. Though there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal, in the considered view of this bench, the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to pursue his appeal, to meet the ends of justice or else he would be rendered remedyless. 16. Since the application under section 254(2) itself was not maintainable, using the inherent powers with the Tribunal, they should have treated the application under section 254 (2) as one seeking revival of the appeal, in the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 20-1-2021. 17. In the above factual matrix, the order dated 11-7-2023 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and consequently, the application under section 254(2) is ordered to be treated as an application for revival of the appeal. The Appeal vide I.TA.No.32/Hyd/2020 is restored and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law on its own merits.” 6. In the said case, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application by treating the same as filed u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and consequently, held as not maintainable being barred by limitation as provided u/s 254(2) of Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 8 the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the application filed by the assessee for revival of the appeal would not be treated as an application for rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) of the Act and therefore, the limitation provided u/s 254(2) would not be applicable. Thus, even if the application filed by the assessee is not for rectification of the mistake in the order of this Tribunal dated 7/6/2021 and the same may be treated u/s 254(1) of the Act for exercising the inherent power to recall its order to meet the end of justice, the assessee cannot be allowed to wait for an indefinite period before approaching the Tribunal for recalling of the order. Therefore, even if the limitation of 6 months as provided u/s 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of recalling of the order dated 7/6/2021, the applications ought to have been filed within a reasonable period and the delay in filing the application must have been explained to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The question arises if limitation of 6 months provided u/s 254(2) is not applicable, then the limitation provided in the general statute i.e. Limitation Act would be applicable for filing of the applications. It is a settled proposition of law that so far as the limitation is provided under the special statute the applicability of the general statute is excluded, however, where the limitation for a particular action is not provided in the special statute, then the provision of general statute are applicable. Accordingly, if the applications filed by the assessee are treated u/s 254(1) of the Act, then the limitation for approaching this Tribunal for exercising inherent power to recall its earlier order would be applicable as provided under the Limitation Act. The limitation Act provides the limitation for the specific purposes and also provides the provision for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the application beyond the period of limitation. Such provisions of condonation of delay is provided u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. As per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, if limitation is not provided for any specific application, then the residuary limitation of 3 years is applicable. 7. In case in hand, the assessee has filed these Miscellaneous Applications after more than 3 years and the assessee has not even filed any application for condonation of delay or explained any reasonable, much less sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay in filing these applications. The only reason stated by the assessee is that while filing the return of income for the A.Y 2024-25, the assessee received a notice u/s 245 of the Act, regarding adjustment of the refund against the demands for the A.Ys 2012-13 & 2013- 14 and then the assessee has filed these applications for revival of the appeals already withdrawn vide order dated 7/6/2021. Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963 defines the period of limitation as under: “Section (2)…………… (a) xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx (j) period of limitation” means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and “prescribed period” means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act; ” 8. Thus, the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application is provided in the schedule of period of limitation and computed in accordance with the Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 9 provisions of the Limitation Act. As per Article 122 of the schedule of limitation, the period of limitation for filing an application to restore the suit, appeal or application for review or revision is 30 days computed from the date of dismissal of the suit, appeal or application. Though section (5) of the Limitation Act provides that an appeal or application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Since the application in the case of the assessee is not for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default of appellant therefore, the period of limitation as provided under Article 137 which covers all other applications may be considered being residual provision prescribes the limitation as 3 years which is otherwise provided under the limitation Act for filing the suits falling in the first division of the schedule for that there is no provision even in the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. However, even if the limitation as provided under Article 137 of schedule of limitation is taken as 3 years for filing the application for restoration of the appeal earlier dismissed as withdrawn, then the delay in filing the application after the said period of 3 years is required to be explained with sufficient cause to the satisfaction of this Tribunal. 9. In the present case, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn by this Tribunal vide order dated 7/6/2021 and the declaration/application under DTVSV Act, 2020 was also stood rejected in the month of April, 2021 itself when the assessee did not making the payments of the amounts determined as per the certificate issued in Form-3 of the DTVSV Act 2020 and consciously allowed the application/declaration under VSVS Act 2020 to be rejected/deemed to have never been made as per section 6 of the DTVSV Act 2020. Even otherwise, the assessee has accepted this fact that it has taken a conscious decision for not make the payment of the amount of tax determined in Form-3. Therefore, the limitation of 3 years as prescribed under Article 137 of the schedule of limitation as per the Limitation Act would reckon from the date of the impugned order i.e. 7/6/2021 as this is later than the rejection/closure of the application filed by the assessee under the VSVS Act, 2020. The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed on 30/12/2024 are beyond the period of 3 years as limitation prescribed under Article 137 of schedule of limitation for which the assessee was required to explain a sufficient cause. As we have already taken note of the fact that the assessee has not even filed any application for condonation of delay and the only reason which is explained by the assessee in para 8 to 11 of the Miscellaneous Application is as under: 8. The Applicant submits that it was under bonafide belief that its appeal was restored as the DTVSV application did not materialize and thus failed to file the present application in time. The applicant submits that the delay in filing this miscellaneous application was not a deliberate one. It was only after receipt of the notice u/s 245 of the Act that the Applicant sought legal advise from its tax consultants and learnt that the matter is not pending. Hence instant miscellaneous application. 9. Moreover, the Applicant has not gained anything, either in monetary terms or non-monetary terms, by delay in filing the present application. Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 10 The Applicant is very much keen in pursuing the appeal and assures the Hon'ble Tribunal that it shall extend all possible assistance for disposal of the said appeal. 10. The Applicant prays that the inadvertent delay be condoned and the matter be restored as the quantum involved and corresponding demand raised is very high and would cause the Applicant grave injustice if the matter stays dismissed without the Applicant having received any opportunity of being heard. 11. Without prejudice, the Applicant submits that section 254(2) of the Act has no application to the present miscellaneous application as the same is for revival of the appeal and cannot be equated with the rectification of order as stipulated in section 254(2) of the Act. Thus, though there is delay on part of the Applicant in approaching the Hon'ble Bench, the Applicant should be afforded an opportunity to pursue its appeal to meet ends of justice or else it would be left remediless. 10. Thus, the assessee has explained that it was under Bonafide belief that its appeal was restored as DTVSV application did not materialize and thus, failed to file the present application in time. It is pertinent to note that in the impugned order itself, the Tribunal has made it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal within the stipulated time as provided under the Act in order to reinstate the appeal, if the application with respect to the VSVS 2020 are rejected. Therefore, there was no scope of any misunderstanding or ambiguity about the restoration of the appeals when the Tribunal has made it clear that the assessee was to approach the Tribunal. In any case, when the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the order of this Tribunal, then in the absence of bringing this fact of non materializing of application under VSVS 2020, the appeals of the assessee would not get restored automatically. The assessee is a company having all the requisite professional, advice and services and therefore, cannot take a plea that the delay in filing the application was due to Bonafide belief or inadvertent mistake. The said plea taken by the assessee having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case would not constitute sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing the applications. 11. There is no quarrel on the point that the expression “sufficient cause” must be construed liberally in favour of the litigant approached the Court belatedly so that the dispute could be decided as far as possible on merits and not on technicalities. However, at the same time, the litigant is not allowed to use the process of law to achieve an ulterior purpose in under hand way by approaching the Court belatedly. Therefore, the concept of liberal interpretation of expression “sufficient cause” would not obliterate the requirement of some reasonable cause to justify the delay. The apparent unacceptable and unsatisfactory reasons cannot be accepted when the Court finds absolutely no justification for the inordinate delay in filing the applications. It is pertinent to note that the explanation for the delay must be non discretionary on the part of the defaulter. In other words, the delay must be caused by the circumstances beyond the control of the litigant. The applicant before us has waited for more than 3 years to file these Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 11 Miscellaneous Applications and has failed to show that it has acted bonafidely and has taken all possible steps within its power and control to file the applications without unnecessary delay. The assessee has rather contended that the appeals of the assessee got automatically restored in view of the provisions of DTVSV Act, 2020 which in our considered view, is not a righty claim of the assessee and only provides an opportunity to the assessee to get the proceedings revived particularly when the proceedings were not pending with the Department but were pending before this Tribunal. The applicant/assessee has failed to bring any material to show that it was prevented by some circumstances or events which were beyond the control of it to file the application within the period of limitation or within a reasonable period. The case of the assessee falls in the category of delay and latches in filing these applications and the explanation of the assessee for such delay is nothing but a device to achieve ulterior purpose and an attempt to save the limitation in under hand way. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to explain a reasonable cause, much less a sufficient cause, for the delay in filing these Miscellaneous Applications and hence we decline to condone the delay in filing the present applications. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee are held to be barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 12. In the result, Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed being barred by limitation.” 6. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances and also by following the ratio of the order passed by the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Esha Media Research Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra), we are of the considered view that, the M.A. filed by the assessee is not maintainable and thus, dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd November, 2025. Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखध सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com M.A.No.71/Hyd/2025 in ITA No.1033/Hyd/2019 Neetha Pulasani 12 Hyderabad, dated 03.11.2025. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रयतयलयि अग्रेयषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. यनिााररती/The Assessee : Smt. Neetha Pulasani, Flat No.102, Gowri Apartments, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad 500029, Telangana 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 14(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal CIT, Hyderabad. 4. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयि, आयकर अिीलीय अयिकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गार्ाफ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "