MUNIDASAPPA MANJUNATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC beyond the prescribed period, citing the health and subsequent death of his mother as the reason for the delay. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal. The assessee appealed this dismissal to the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT found the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC to be plausible and sufficient. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment and CIT(A)/NFAC orders were ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was to be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This Appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.6.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077082811(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2020-21.
The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: -
ITA No.1888/Bang/2025 Munidasappa Manjunath, Bengaluru Page 2 of 4
ITA No.1888/Bang/2025 Munidasappa Manjunath, Bengaluru Page 3 of 4
At the outset, the ld. A.R of the assessee drew our attention to the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and vehemently submitted that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee despite the fact that the assessee during the course of appellate proceeding submitted affidavit along with the death certificate of his mother stating therein the sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The main contention of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was the health condition of his mother who subsequently expired on 15/07/2024.
3.1 Perused the record and having heard the ld. Council for the assessee as well as the ld. D.R, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation petition as well as in affidavit was plausible and sufficient cause being demonstrated by the assessee, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.
Now having condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, before us both the parties fairly conceded that the assessment order as well as order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC are ex-parte. Further, before us the ld. A.R. of the assessee undertakes to submit all the documents/ records/ information to the AO if the matter is remitted to the file of AO. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the ld. AO to decide a fresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the proceedings and submit all the necessary documents/ evidence/ information in support of his contention or any other documents/ information as may be
ITA No.1888/Bang/2025 Munidasappa Manjunath, Bengaluru Page 4 of 4 required by the AO for the completion of assessment. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th Mar, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated 30th Mar,2026. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
