AMRITA BHOOMI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1715/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 July 2026AY 2019-20207 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 48-day delay in filing the appeal, finding that the reason provided constituted a 'sufficient cause' based on established legal principles emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the merits and without providing a proper opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed in limine due to a 48-day delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause. The assessee's authorized signatory was traveling abroad for a family ceremony, which caused the delay. The assessee provided evidence like air tickets and an invitation card to support their claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(A)/NFAC violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without a proper hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Vignesh K., A.R

Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

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 28.5.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076503717(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019-20.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

The order of the learned the Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals (CIT(A)) in so far is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts

Grounds on Principles of Natural justice: 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not issuing a hearing notice for which is against the principle of natural justice.

ITA No.1715/Bang/2025 Amrita Bhoomi, Bengaluru Page 2 of 7 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not following the provisions of Section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) in order to dispose the appeal. 4. That the learned CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act without providing an opportunity to the appellant to show cause why there was a sufficient delay for filing the appeal which is against the principal of natural justice.

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that there was a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not admitting the appeal for adjudication by alleging that no sufficient cause had been provided by the assessee for the delay. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC stating the reasons for the delay which is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience: -

ITA No.1715/Bang/2025 Amrita Bhoomi, Bengaluru Page 3 of 7

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same as stated in the above application & submitted that the authorized signatory of the assessee was travelling to Italy during the month of May, 2024 for her father-in-law ceremony & hence there was a delay in filing the appeal by 48 days. The ld. AR of the assessee further drew our attention on the invitation card as well as the Air tickets (placed at pages 14-16 of PB) in support of his claim. In view of the above, it was contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but arose due to the aforementioned circumstances, which were beyond the assessee’s control and consequently 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 of the case.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand, strongly contended that as rightly stated by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee could not demonstrate the sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly by 48 days and accordingly requested to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay. 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 period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before us, the assessee produced the copies of the Air Tickets & invitation card & stated that the

ITA No.1715/Bang/2025 Amrita Bhoomi, Bengaluru Page 4 of 7 authorized signatory of the assessee was travelling to Italy during the month of May, 2024 for her father-in-law ceremony & hence there was a delay in filing the appeal by 48 days. We are satisfied that there was a “sufficient cause” in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

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 non-deliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in

ITA No.1715/Bang/2025 Amrita Bhoomi, Bengaluru Page 5 of 7 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 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

ITA No.1715/Bang/2025 Amrita Bhoomi, Bengaluru Page 6 of 7 condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 48 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 48 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Further, it is an undisputed fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee also strongly contended that except for one notice that too related to “Enablement of Communication window”, no notice for hearing of the appeal was also issued by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Further, in support of its contention, the screenshot of the portal is produced before us. [ Placed at page- 17 of PB]. This being so & having condone the delay, we in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 22nd July, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.1715/Bang/2025 Amrita Bhoomi, Bengaluru Page 7 of 7

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →