CHANDRA LAKKANNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessment order came to be passed on 05.12.2019 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by making an addition of Rs.30 lakhs on account of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05.12.2019, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05.05.2026 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on delay in latches as there was delay of One month in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee preferred the present appeal.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has committed grave error in not condoning the One month delay, though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the first appeal. Thus, sought for allowing the present appeal.

Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee on delay in latches. Thus, sought for dismissal of the present appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Assessee preferred the first appeal challenging the assessment order with a delay of One month in filing of appeal. The assessee in Form 35 for condoning the delay submitted that ‘assessee is not well versed in electronic media, as such missed the uploading of order’. Looking into the meagre days of delay of nearly One month, the ld. CIT(A) should have followed a liberal approach in condoning the delay and should have decided the appeal on merits.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the

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