ITTA/158/2026 of Yasmeen Shazia, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), on 18 August 2026

1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax / Central Circle-1(4), lncome Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500004, Telangana. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, Counsel representing

(Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department) lTTA.Nos.160

ITTA NO: 157 OF 2026 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of thr: lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 30J0.2025 passed in ITA No, 1360/Hyd/2025 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad "SM" Bench , Hyderabad. Between: Yasmeen Shazia, W/o Mohammad Hafeezuddin, Rl/o H.No. 5-55/1, Ramadugu District, Karimnagar - 505531, Telangana. ...Appe llant AND

1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-1(4), lncome Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. L.B. Stadium, Bash{rerbagh, Hyderabad -

... Responde nt Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Alluri Divakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, Cornsel representing Sri N Praveen Reddy (Standing Counsel for the lncrrme Tax Department) ITTA NO: 158 OF 2026 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 30.10.2025 passed in ITA No. 1359/Hyd/2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Between: Yasmeen Shazia, W/o Mohammad Hafeezuddin, FL/o H.No. 5-55/1, Ramadugu district, Karimnagar - 50553'l , Telangana. AND ...Appellant

1. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle-1(4), lncome Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. L.B. Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004, Telangana. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri AIluri Divakar Reddy Gounsel for the Respondent : Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, Counsel representing

(Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department) The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF-I'ELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KTOSHY I.T.l'.A.Nos.l60, 157 and 158 of 202( DATL:18.08.2026 Between: Yasmeen Shazia AND The Deputy Comrnissioner of lncome Tax / Cenlral Circle l4 COMMON JIJDGMENT: . . .,\ppellant . . Respondent tp':r the llon hh Sri JrsriLp P. \2rrr ^{ril Heard Mr. Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Srinarayan J'oshniwal, learned counsel representing Mr. N. Prar,een Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel lbr the Income Tax Depaftment. appearing for thc respondents. Perused the record.

2. These appeals are admitted on the followirig substantial question of law: "Whether the impugned order passed by the ITAT is liable to be set oside on the ground that the appellant was not afforded an opportttnity of hearing on merits and that the appeals preferred by the assessee were rejected only on technical grounds, by treating the appeuls as defective? " AND THE HON'BLE SRI JLISTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3. These three appeals arise out of the common order dated 30.10.2025 passed in ITA Nos.1359, 1360 & 136llHydl2025 for the assessment y ears 2020-21, 2022-23 and 2021 -22 respectively, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad "SM" Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").

4. By the irnpugned order, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appeals were defective.

5. A plain reading of the impugned order would show that, against the respective orders passed by the Comrnissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) lor the aforesaid three assessment years, the appeilant had preferred the three appeals in ITA Nos.l359, 1360 & 136llHydl2025 before the -I'ribunal

6. However, when the matters were taken up tbr hearing, it was noticed that all the three memoranda of appeals suft'ered tiom certain defects, including the fact that they were unsigned. The del'ects rvere accordingly pointed out and notices were issued to the appellant lbr removal of the same. Despite sufficient time being granted, the defects were neither cured nor rectitled. Consequentlv, the appeals calne to be dismissed for detault.

Page 3 oi 7

7. Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that, since the appeals have not been adjudicated on merits and have only been disrnissed for deiault" tiie rnatters nray be remanded to the Tribunal by irnposing such conditions as this Court may deem fit, so that the appcals rray be adjudicated on their own merits anrl in accordance rvith larv.

8. Lealned counsel fbr the appellant lurther subrrrits that, during the relevant period, the appellant was unwell and, in support of the said submission, has produced certain medical ceftificates. It is subrnitted that, on account of her ill-health, the appellant was not in a position to eft'ectively pursue the lnatters before thr' Tribunal, nor could she appear before the Tribunal fbr curing the del'ects. Leamed counsel, theretbre, prays that the lapse on the part of the appellant rnal' be condoned and the appeals be restored, granting rcasonable tirne for cirring the defects, and thereafter directing the Tribunal to decide the appeals on their own merits and in accordance with law.

9. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the Department, opposing the appeals, submits that a plain reading ol the irnpugned order would show that the lapses were entirely attributable to the Page ,l of 7 appellant, inasmuch AS the memoranda ol appeals were fi led unsigned. It is further submitted that,, despite the Tribunal pointing out the def'ects and issuing notices for their rectification, the appellant neither appeared in person nor through her authorized representalive to cure the det-ects. Under such circumstances. the Tribunal had no other option but to dismiss the appeals for default. Therelbre, learned counsel submits that the irnpugned order does not call for any interference by this Court

10. Havir.rg heard the contentions advanced on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the impugned order carne to be passed dismissirrg the appeals for default. The defect pointed out b1' the Tribunal, namely, the memoranda of appeals having been trled unsigned, appears to be a curable and, in the facts of the present case, a relatively trivial defect. It is true that the appellant ought to have been rnore vigilant u'hile filing the appeals and ought to have ensured that the memoranda oi appeals were properly filed. Likervise, upon the defects being pointed out during scrutiny, the appellant ought to have taken prompt steps to cure the defbcts rvithin thc time granted.

Pase i Lrl l I l. Nonetheless. in the facts and circumstances of the present case, il the matters are not remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits, the appellant uould be deprived of an opportunity to have the appeals considered on merits, and the orders passed by the Tribunal r'vould attain finality withor.rt the issues raised by the appellant having been adjudicated on rnerits.

12. [n vieu' ol the aforesaid f-actual matrix, and more particularly. considering the fhct that the appellant would be deprived of an adjudication on merits if the matters are not remanded to the Tribunal, we are inclined to allow these three appeals, subject to the appellant depositing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousard only) in each appeal with the State Legal Services Authority, within a period of I0 da1 s fi'om today

13. Upon furnishing proof/receipts evidencing such deposit, the Tribunal shall restore ITA Nos. 1359. i360 & 136llHtdl2o25 to their original numbers. The appellant shall, within a furthe r period of l5 days tiom the date of such restoration, ensure that rll the defects pointed out by the Tribunal are duly rectified and cur,:d. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed to hear and decide the appeals on their own merits and in accordance with law

14. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. .lhe three appeals are, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad "SM" Bench , Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri N Praveen Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department [OPUC]

4. The Director, Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad (By Special Messanger)

5. Two CD Copies SaTGNK

To, @,

HIGH COURT DATED: 1810812026

COMMON JUDGMENT

ITTA.Nos.160, 157 AND 158 OF 2026 ALLOWING THE APPEALS I

e )ou c I A \r t [u t vZ Ct .}t ?tzb J

a,a 'Qsw .\rlv @