SYSTEMS ALLOYS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons for non-appearance to be valid. The matter was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. The assessee filed a delayed appeal before the ITAT, citing genuine reasons for the delay and non-appearance before lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee had valid reasons for delay and non-appearance before the lower authorities, and if the additions made by the AO were justified without proper opportunity to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 40(a)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 15/04/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2014-15.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and filed their return of income on 14/08/2015. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. Subsequently notice u/s. 142(1) was issued for which the assessee had not filed any reply. The AO issued a show
ITA No. 1577/BANG/2026 SYSTEMS ALLOYS
cause notice and subsequently the assessee submitted documents on 22.12.2016. The AO based on the documents furnished by the assessee found that there was an increase in capital and also received unsecured loans. The AO sought for the explanation and the assessee also submitted the details. The assessee had not furnished the details of the source of income of partners and not furnished the details of the unsecured creditors and therefore the AO had treated the capital infused by the partners as well as the unsecured loans as unaccounted money and added as income. Similarly, the AO had disallowed 30% u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the interest payments since the assessee had not deducted the TDS while making the payments.
As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) issued 14 hearing notices on various dates but the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal.
As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 282 days. The assessee filed a detailed application to condone the delay. The reasons are seems to be genuine and therefore we are inclined to condone the delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that all the details are available but the same could not be able to furnish before the Authorities since the partner who is looking after the finance matter fell sick and also the premises of the assessee was sealed by the Pollution Control Board and prayed to grant one more opportunity to produce the documents before the AO. The Ld.AR also draw our attention to the detailed reasons stated in the affidavit to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
The assessee in the delay condonation application explained the reasons in detail for not appearing before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and also explained the reasons for the
ITA No. 1577/BANG/2026 SYSTEMS ALLOYS
non-appearance before the Ld.CIT(A). We have also considered the said reasons and we are satisfied that the assessee had valid reasons for not appearing before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04th August, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- WASEEM AHMED SOUNDARARAJAN K. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore Dated: 04th August, 2026.
Copy to: SYSTEMS ALLOYS, 138, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BEHIND 1 METRO STATION NAGAVARA, BENGALURU-560077, KARNATAKA
ACIT, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING 2 KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034, KARNATAKA
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
BY ORDER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., BANGALORE.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Atiquiddin Shaikh vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Mr. Gurudev Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra BankMadhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
