What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 59 days due to the tax practitioner's failure to inform him of the order, the assessee's health issues, and the closure of his business. The assessee only became aware of the order when he consulted a new Chartered Accountant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the merits.

Pallipuzha Manzil Abdul Bashir… vs ACIT | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1075486951(1) dated 04-Apr-2025 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

At the outset, we note that the present appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 59 days. The assessee states that he noticed the order on the Income-tax portal only on 06.08.2025. However, if the date of e-mail delivery on 04.04.2025 is taken as the date of service, the appeal is delayed by 59 days. The assessee has, therefore, filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay.

It is submitted that the assessee had earlier entrusted the appellate proceedings to his tax practitioner, Ms. Nandini. However, she did not effectively pursue the matter and failed to inform the assessee about the developments and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

It was further submitted that the assessee was facing health issues and had undergone major surgery in November 2023. During this period, his business operations were also affected. He gradually closed his business at Mangaluru and shifted his attention to his other business in Kerala. The e-mail account of the Mangaluru business was thereafter unattended as the staff had been relieved and the office was closed by November/December 2024. Consequently, the hearing notice dated 25.03.2025 and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 04.04.2025 did not come to his knowledge.

The assessee stated that he came to know about the order only on 06.08.2025 when he approached a Chartered Accountant, who verified the Income-tax portal and informed him about the order. Thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the appeal. It was submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and was caused by circumstances beyond his control. The assessee accordingly prayed for condonation of the delay of 59 days.

The Ld. DR opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. He accordingly prayed that the delay should not be condoned.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and examined the reasons given by the assessee for the delay. At the outset, we note that the assessee has taken a specific stand that he became aware of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only on 06.08.2025 when the same was noticed on the Income-tax portal. However, even if the date of e-mail communication dated 04.04.2025 is taken as the date of service, there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal. We find that the explanation furnished by the assessee is reasonable. The assessee had entrusted the appellate proceedings to his tax practitioner and, according to the affidavit, was not informed about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, the assessee was facing health problems and had undergone major surgery. The medical records placed before us also support the fact that he had undergone hospitalisation and surgery in November 2023. Further, the assessee had closed his Mangaluru business and the e-mail account connected with that business was no longer being regularly monitored.

7.1 In these circumstances, we are of the view that the delay cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate. The assessee has also taken steps to file the appeal after coming to know about the order. There is no material before us suggesting that the assessee gained any benefit by not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

7.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also emphasised that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by filing an appeal belatedly. Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 59 days. In our considered view, the matter deserves to be decided on the merits rather than being rejected on a technical ground of limitation. Accordingly, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji (supra), we condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

On merit

7.3 At the outset, we note that the learned CIT(A), dismissed the appeal by observing that several notices were issued to the assessee to file supporting documents to the grounds of appeal raised and submit a submission and explanation, but the assessee remained silent. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee had nothing to say against the assessment order. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine without examining the merit of the case.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The learned AR submitted before us that the assessee could not properly comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). He requested that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(A). The learned AR also assured that the assessee would make necessary compliance and furnish all the details and documents as may be required by the learned CIT(A).

The learned DR, on the other hand, opposed the request of the assessee and supported the order of the learned CIT(A). However, he left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

8.1 Considering the above submissions and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

8.2 The learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal afresh on merits. The assessee is directed to make necessary compliance and extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings. The assessee shall also furnish all the relevant details and documents as may be called for by the learned CIT(A) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say, the learned CIT(A) shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL WASEEM AHMED JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore Dated: 13th August, 2026 Vms Copy to: PALLIPUZHA MANZIL ABDUL BASHIR, 17-23-1609/4. METALCO PLAZA, FALNIR ROAD KANKANADY. 1 MANGALURU-575001, MANGALURU-575001, KARNATAKA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF 2 INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU-575001, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH 5 GUARD FILE By Order

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

PALLIPUZHA MANZIL ABDUL BASHIR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALURU

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments