What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason plausible. The Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 106 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the Karta of the HUF being a doctor busy with the 3rd wave of Covid-19 cases.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Prakash Patil, Haveri vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Shambullingayya G Kulkarni, A.R

Hearing: 23.06.2026Pronounced: 07.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081817336(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.2924/Bang/2025 Prakash Patil, Haveri Page 2 of 4

ITA No.2924/Bang/2025 Prakash Patil, Haveri Page 3 of 4

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16/10/2025 & vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 106 days in filing the appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee further drew our attention to the Sl. No. 14 & 15 of the Form No. 35 wherein the assessee had categorically stated that the karta of the HUF is a doctor by profession who was busy in handling 3rd wave of Covid-19 cases & for this reason the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. It is also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional.

3.1 Having heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as ld. DR & on perusal of the reason stated in Form No.35, it is perceived that the explanation offered is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee, which prevented them in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC within the prescribed period and accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay of 106 days & admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Now having condoned the delay, in our considered opinion as the assessee could not represent its case before the AO also due the engagement of Karta in Covid-19 pandemic, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the ld. AO to decide a fresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunities of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce before the AO all the documentary evidences submitted before us for the first time along with the any other relevant documents/record/information /evidences to substantiate its claim or as may be required by the AO for concluding the assessment. We make it clear that in case of

ITA No.2924/Bang/2025 Prakash Patil, Haveri Page 4 of 4 further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th Sept, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Balakrishnan S.) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 7th Sept, 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.

PRAKASH PATIL,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments