NIKHIL REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2162/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 August 2026AY 2017-1812 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The reasons provided were general, vague, and unsupported by evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC which dismissed his quantum and penalty appeals due to inordinate delay. The assessee cited lack of awareness of assessment proceedings and COVID-19 lockdown as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 17.08.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079044632(1) dated 29.07.2025 in respect of quantum appeal, vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081261815(1) dated 27.09.2025 in respect of penalty proceedings u/s. 270A and vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081261867(1) dated 27.09.2025 for penalty proceeding u/s. 271AAC, all for the AY 2017-18 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “theAct”). Since the issue involved in all these appeals are inter-related, these appeals are

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 2 of 12 clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.

In assessee’s quantum appeal in ITA No. 2162/Bang/2025 for the AY 2017-18, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.2644/Bang/2025 for the AY 2017-18:-

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 3 of 12

4.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.2645/Bang/2025 for the AY 2017-18:-

5.

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & vehemently submitted that all these quantum and penalty appeals of the assessee are dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by rejecting the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence, these appeals were dismissed in- limine as barred by limitation. Further, the ld. AR submitted that

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 4 of 12 there were almost 1480 days delay in filing the quantum appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the delay of almost 1298 days in respect of both the penalty appeals before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

5.1 Further, the ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention to the reasons as cited by the assessee for the delay in filing all these appeals & vehemently submitted that the assessee was completely unaware of the assessment proceedings and also he was not aware of the legal provisions relating thereto. The assessee also has very limited or no knowledge of the process of assessment proceedings and was unable to furnish the details and explanations called for in the said notices. Further, the lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic affected and staggered the normal course of life and the assessee could not review the communication received from the tax department to evaluate the course of action that is required to be taken. It is also submitted that while filing the return of income for the subsequent years in March, 2023, the assessee noticed the outstanding demand and the assessment / penalty orders in the income tax portal. The assessee, thereafter, immediately reached out to a tax consultant in this regard and was advised about the possibility of filing an appeal. Since the assessee was bonafide unaware about the nature and consequence of income tax assessment proceedings, the legal provisions relating thereto, the preference of an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was delayed.

5.2 The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the other hand, observed that the reasons advanced are general, vague and unsupported by any corroborative or documentary evidences. No material has been furnished to demonstrate that the assessee made any efforts to verify his tax compliance or status during the period of over 4 years. The mere assertion that emails were archived and the assessee was unaware of the proceedings does not constitute

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 5 of 12 sufficient cause for condoning such an extra ordinary delay. As the assessee failed to establish any cogent, credible and bonafide reason for inordinate delay and the reasons are general statements and no evidence has been submitted to show any concrete difficulty or circumstances that prevented timely filing, the delay of approximately 1298 days in filing the appeal was held to be not condonable and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as barred by limitation.

5.3 However, in both the penalty proceedings, there was delay of almost 1298 days in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the assessee has advanced the same reasons for delay as in the quantum appeal and the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also citing the same findings, rejected both the penalty appeals by not condoning the delay of 1298 days.

6.

Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeals before this Tribunal.

7.

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee filed a written submission & vehemently submitted that the only definite source of income of the assessee is rental income and interest income which were less than 5 lakhs for AY 2017-18 (and before) and until AY 2022-23. The assessee’s living expenses were primarily taken care of either by his father or his spouse. The assessee was not filing his income tax returns given the minimal income of less than Rs. 5 lakhs and his last income tax return was filed for AY 2013-14. Further, it is submitted that notices were issued purportedly by email and post, however, since the assessee was not financially and commercially active, the assessee did not check emails even regularly due to which he was not aware of these notices. In the absence of responses, the AO concluded the assessment

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 6 of 12 proceedings as well as penalty proceedings ex-parte. It is also submitted that since the assessee was not filing his IT Returns, he had no reason to visit the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department as well. As such, the assessee had not noticed these orders even in the e-filing portal. Lastly, it was submitted that these orders came to the assessee’s attention only in about March, 2023, when the assessee wished to obtain a Visa for overseas travel and for this purpose, was asked to furnish his tax returns. Given this requirement, the assessee furnished updated returns in March & April, 2023 for AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23.

8.

Per contra, the ld. standing council for the Revenue, vehemently objected for granting condonation of such huge delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and vehemently submitted that the assessee failed to demonstrate the sufficient cause in filing the appeals belatedly by almost four years. The explanation offered by the assessee is general, vague and without any corroborative evidence. Further, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee was very callous in his approach in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also submitted that the authorities below have not only send the notices through email but also through speed post but the assessee did not care to reply any of the notices.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions on condonation of delay and perused the material available on record as well as the written submission filed by the assessee. On perusal of the reasons cited by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we observe that the main contention of the assessee is that he was not aware of the legal provisions and also has very limited or no knowledge of the process of assessment proceedings and was unable to furnish the details and explanations called for in the said notices. Further, before us, the assessee by way of written submission stated that the assessee

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 7 of 12 was not filing his income tax returns given the minimal income of less than Rs. 5 lakhs and his last income tax return was filed for AY 2013-14.

9.1 We do not agree with the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee was not aware of the legal provisions and was not filing the returns given the minimal income of less than Rs. 5 Lakhs. On perusal of the details submitted, we observed that the assessee had infact filed his return of income for the AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 as well as 2013-14 and therefore it cannot be said that the assessee was not aware of the provisions of law and requirement of filing his returns of income. Infact, for AY 2014-15, the assessee did not file his return of income despite the fact that assessee sold his property on 10.10.2013 for Rs. 39,00,000/- and did not offer any capital gain tax for AY 2014-15. Further, we do not agree with the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee was not filing the returns for AY 2014-15 to 2019-20 as the minimal income was less than 5 lakhs as the basic exemption limit was only Rs. 2,50,000/- and not 5,00,000/- as claimed by the AR of the assessee. The mere fact that the assessee was not required to pay any taxes on an income of Rs. 5,00,000/- or less, does not relieve the assessee of his statutory requirement of filing the returns.

9.2 Further, in the affidavit filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also observed that the assessee on account of Covid-19 pandemic lockdown could not review the communications received from the Income Tax Department to evaluate the course of action that was required to be taken. Thus in our opinion, it indicates that the assessee was very well aware of the notices issued by the Revenue. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee miserably failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 8 of 12 before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for almost 4 years. In our considered opinion, even if we also consider the Covid pandemic, the assessee slept over the matter & no cogent reason had been advanced by the assessee except by saying that the assessee was completely unaware of the assessment proceedings and also he was not aware of the legal provisions relating thereto and these orders came to the assessee’s attention only in about March, 2023, when the assessee wished to obtain a Visa for overseas travel and for this purpose, was asked to furnish his tax returns. This clearly shows the inaction & callous approach of the assessee. It is apt to mention that the law of limitation is the impediment of the Maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormenteibus Jura Subvenitent that ensures the case is filed within the stipulated time frame to avoid unnecessary delays. On the other hand, the condonation of delay is the safeguard to the law of limitation and bars certain cases in which the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable i.e. can be backed by having “sufficient cause”.

9.3 In the present case the explanation offered, as stated above in the petition, for condonation of delay filed before the ld. CIT()A/NFAC, cannot be termed as ‘cause’ much less any ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the inordinate delay. These are mere excuses and not explanation. The Hon’ble Supreme court in 2023 INSC 885 Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (09.10.2023 - SC) : MANU/SC/1098/2023 has held as under :-

“29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 9 of 12 discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed to give someone all of the facts and ITA No. 53/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 13 lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'. Although people tend to see 'explanation' and 'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an 'excuse' would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

9.4 Further, the Apex court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash in SLP (Civil Nos.935-936 of 2021 dated 21.11.2024) held as follows:

“12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 10 of 12 State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:-

“The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.” (Emphasis supplied)

9.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah (Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025 dated 8.1.2025) has observed as under:

13.

“We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.

14.

We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a list between the parties.

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 11 of 12 15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.

16.

The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be nondeliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.

17.

We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

9.6 Considering the fact that there is no proper explanation offered by the assessee for such huge delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, according to us, the assessee had miserably failed to provide any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay of over 4 years. We agree with the contentions of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the reasons

ITA Nos.2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 Shri Nikhil Reddy, Bengaluru Page 12 of 12 advanced for such huge delay were general, vague and unsupported by any corroborative or documentary evidences. No material had been furnished to demonstrate that the assessee made any efforts to verify his tax compliance or status during the period of over 4 years. Accordingly, we find no reasons to interfere with the orders of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in dismissing all these appeals of the assessee by not condoning such huge delays of 1480 / 1298 days in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has rightly dismissed all these appeals of the assessee in limine as all the appeals are barred by limitations.

10.

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 2162, 2644 & 2645/Bang/2025 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th Aug, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated: 17th Aug, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →