MALAVAGOPPA HALLAPA SHARATH,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD - 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2649/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 August 2026AY 2022-239 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 247 days, finding sufficient cause and prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a farmer from a rural area, failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time due to a professional's non-compliance. The delay of 247 days was discovered later when the current Chartered Accountant logged into the e-filing portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, and whether the matter should be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271AAC(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 03.06.2026Pronounced: 17.08.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 27.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082021663(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (“CIT(A)”), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.10.2025 insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and preponderance of probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 2 of 9 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay which arose in iling the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The notice issued under section 271AAC(1) of the Act is non est and bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

The order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act non est and bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

The order passed under section 271AAC(1) of the Act is barred by limitation on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

The impugned proceedings are conducted assuming proper jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

The appropriate sanction necessary for passing the impugned penalty order was not accorded and consequently, the impugned order is vitiated on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.

The appropriate procedure necessary for passing the impugned penalty order was not followed and consequently, the impugned order is vitiated on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9.

The Appellant denies himself to be liable to a penalty of Rs. 2,48,433/- under the facts and circumstances of case.

10.

The authorities below failed to appreciate that the additions made under section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,85,040/- is bad in law and consequently, no penalty ought to be levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, substitute, change and delete any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal.

In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.

3.

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 27.10.2025 and vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 3 of 9 appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 247 days in filing the appeal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC stating therein the reasons for the delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:-

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 4 of 9

4.

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same as stated in the condonation application & vehemently submitted that the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed period for the reason that the assessee being a farmer & belongs to rural area had handed over the case to an I.Tax professional for filing the

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 5 of 9 necessary submissions and had also forwarded the notices received for doing the needful. However, the said professional did not file any submissions before the A.O. and the assessment proceedings were concluded under the best judgment assessment. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee stated that the assessee came to be aware of the said non-compliance only when the current Chartered Accountant of the assessee logged into the e-filing portal in the month of April, 2025, pursuant to which immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits.

5.

On the contrary the ld. D.R. objected for granting the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee had neither appeared before the AO nor filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC within the prescribed period which clearly demonstrate the careless attitude of the assessee.

6.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In our considered opinion, the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is to be noted that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. We have gone through the

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 6 of 9 reasons explained by the assessee in which the main contention of the assessee is that the assessee being a farmer & hailed from Rural area had handed over the case to an income tax professional for filing the necessary submissions and had also forwarded the notices received for doing the needful. However, the said professional did not file any submissions before the A.O. and the assessment proceedings were concluded under the best judgment assessment. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee stated that the assessee came to be aware of the said non-compliance only when the current Chartered Accountant of the assessee logged into the e- filing portal in the month of April, 2025, pursuant to which immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal.

6.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 7 of 9 (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

6.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority.

6.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 6.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 8 of 9 there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 247 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 247 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and admit the appeal for adjudication.

7.

Now having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also observed that the assessee had categorically requested for VC if any adverse view is taken by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC while passing the Appellate Order, however, the same was also not provided by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC stating that the assessee cannot make such conditional request. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh on merit of the case in accordance with the law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and submit all the necessary information/evidences/documents to substantiate his claim. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.2649/Bang/2025 MalavagoppaHallapa Sharath, Shivamogga Page 9 of 9

8.

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

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 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →