RAMAKRISHNA,BENGALURU URBAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU URBAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1846/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 July 2026AY 2015-1614 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's illiteracy and inability to represent themselves effectively, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 145 days, citing illiteracy and lack of awareness of appeal procedures. The assessee also argued that they could not properly represent their case before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's illiteracy and inability to represent their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 151A,Section 273B,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA P.R. Suresh, A.R
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 21.01.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072380243(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Order UIs 250 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals centre, Delhi, (CIT(A)-NFAC) confirming the penalty u/s 271 (I)(c) passed by the Income Tax Officer, Kar dated 21/01/2025 is bad in law.

2.

The Order of the learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), passed under section 250, in respect of levy of penalty UIs 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs 7,00,956/-, in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 2 of 14 3. The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider, appellant being illiterate / uneducated, couldn't frame Grounds of Appeal properly, covered under the CBDT Circular No.14 (XL-35) dated 11/04/1955.

4.

The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to pass order on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5.

The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider Explanation to Section 251 (1), to consider the appeal on merits, facts not raised by the Appellant.

6.

The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider, that 7. Notice for reassessment was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(1), Bangalore, dated 31/03/2022, in violation of provisions of Section 15 IA of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessment Order and initiation of penalty proceedings are without Jurisdiction.

8.

The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider, decision of the Supreme Court in M/S. Reliance Petro Products in levying penalty UIs 271 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

9.

The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider the

10.

facts on record, Loan obtained by Appellants for construction, sale consideration includes price of both Land and Building construct thereon, not allowed by the Assessing Officer, disallowed the cost of improvement for assessment proceedings, failed to consider for levy of penalty, penalty proceedings being different and distinct, levy of penalty of Rs.7,00,956/- is bad in law.

11.

The learned (CIT(A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider, reasonable cause U/s 273B of Income Tax Act, 1961 , in levying penalty.

12.

The learned (CIT (A)-NFAC), erred in law and facts, failed to consider, the Application for Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

13.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above.

14.

For the above and other grounds to be urged during the course of the hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 3 of 14 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to a petition for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit in original sworn before the notary public dated 22.08.2025 stating the reason for the delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record:

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 4 of 14

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 5 of 14

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 6 of 14

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 7 of 14

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 8 of 14

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 9 of 14

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 10 of 14 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed period for the reason that the assessee being uneducated/illiterate and was not much aware of the procedure of filing appeals, taken time to identify a tax consultant, who can help in filing his appeal & hence there is a delay of 145 days in filing the 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. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay and submitted that there is no sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly by 145 days.

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 us. We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has demonstrated the sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly by 145 days. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals 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 these appeals within the prescribed time. We have gone through the reasons explained by the assessee in which the assessee being uneducated/illiterate and was not much aware of the procedure of filing appeals, taken time to identify a tax consultant, who can help in filing his appeal & hence there is a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal.

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 11 of 14

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. (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

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 12 of 14 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 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, 145 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)

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 13 of 14 condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 145 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

7.

Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that since the assessee is an illiterate and uneducated and he was not able to represent his case before the AO properly and hence the issue may be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

8.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and requested to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

9.

We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the assessee could not represent his case properly before the AO since he was an illiterate and uneducated and not conversant and aware of proper procedure of income tax proceedings. Further, before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee also could not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC properly and requested to provide one more opportunity before the AO to substantiate his claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to submit necessary explanations/submissions to substantiate his claim It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.1846/Bang/2025 Ramakrishna, Bengaluru Page 14 of 14

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 31st July, 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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →