SOHANLAL,BENGALURU vs. ITO WARD 5(3)(5), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 309/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 August 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing technical issues beyond the assessee's control. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a technical issue with Aadhaar-PAN linkage, which is a mandatory requirement for e-filing. The ITAT considered the assessee's explanation for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The merits of the additions made under Section 69A and applicability of Section 115BBE were also raised but not adjudicated at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 249(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13.11.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2020-21.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

1.

The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation, without adjudicating the issues on merits, solely on the alleged ground of delay, rendering the impugned order bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.1 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in incorrectly computing the period of delay by assuming an unexplained delay of 24 days after completion of Aadhaar PAN linkage, whereas the undisputed factual position borne out from record is that the Aadhaar PAN linkage was completed on 13.05.2025 and the appeal was filed on 22.05.2025. The said finding of delay of 24 days is factually incorrect, unsupported by any material on record, and has been arrived at without assigning any basis OR reasoning and therefore vitiates the impugned order. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appeal could not be e verified and filed due to a mandatory system level requirement of Aadhaar PAN linkage, which constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant had acted diligently and bona fide by preparing the appeal within the prescribed period, promptly rectifying the Aadhaar PAN linkage upon detection of the technical issue and filing the appeal immediately thereafter, thereby negating any allegation of negligence, inaction, OR deliberate delay 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice and for non- consideration of the appellants submissions and evidences. 4. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the addition of Rs.44,78,735 that the cash deposited is in nature of business carried out by the appellant i.e, the business activities of money lending and pawn broking is to be assessed under the head other sources as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable, cash deposited is due to the nature of business activity of the appellant, deeming provisions u/s 69A of the Act are not applicable. The addition as made/confirmed are erroneous and are to be deleted. 5. In any case, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact the source of cash deposited was due to the nature of business activity which was rightly explained by the appellant. The action of authorities below in treating the cash deposited as unexplained money is erroneous both on facts and law applicable is 2 to be negated and the cash found is to be treated as business income of the appellant. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition is to be assessed as unexplained money u/s 69A and that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, there being no unexplained money, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable. The levy of taxes at special rates being wholly erroneous is to be deleted. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted.

8.

In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the provision of section 69A of Income tax Act, 1961 be not held applicable and further that the provisions of special rate of tax are not attracted to the case of the appellant and interest levied be also deleted.

3.

We have considered the submission of both sides and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is an individual and, for the year under consideration, filed his return of income on 25.03.2024, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,53,800/-. On the basis of the information received under the e-Verification Scheme, 2021, that the assessee has made a cash deposit amounting to Rs. 54,37,735/- in an account other than a current account maintained with the bank, proceedings under section 148A of the Act were initiated on the basis that the said cash deposit was not commensurate with the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2024. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, held that the source of cash deposits to an extent of Rs.

44,78,735/- is unexplained. Accordingly, the said amount was treated as the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.

4.

It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned CIT(A), disagreeing with the submissions of the assessee, held that there is no sufficient cause explaining the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the assessee's appeal. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

As per the assessee, he is not well-versed with modern technology and digital procedures. It is further plea of the assessee that though the appeal was duly drafted and prepared in Form 35 on the Income Tax Portal within the prescribed time, due to technical hindrance at the time of filing on account of non-linking of assessee’s Aadhaar with his PAN, which is a mandatory requirement for e-Verification and successful submission of the appeal, the assessee could not e-file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. As per the assessee, immediate steps were taken to rectify the issue and successfully linked his Aadhaar with a PAN on 13.05.2025, and immediately thereafter, the appeal was filed in the electronic mode before the learned CIT(A). Thus, as per the assessee, due to the aforesaid circumstances, which are completely beyond its control, the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by 64 days.

6.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. M.S. Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the rules of procedure are handmade of justice. When the substantial justice taking into consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, it is evident that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal.

7.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we are of the view that delay should be condoned. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo consideration, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal before us do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5

8.

As a result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-Aug-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 20-Aug-2026 *VM* Copy to: SOHANLAL, C/O MATHAJI JEWELLERS & BANKERS, AMRUTHAHALLI, JAKKUR 1 MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560092, KARNATAKA ITO WARD 5(3)(5), ITO WARD 5(3)(5) , HMT 2 BUILDING, BANGALORE, BENGALURU-560032, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH 5 GUARD FILE BY ORDER

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., BANGALORE

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →