M/S BHOMIKA TRADING COMPANY,INDI ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, VIJAYAPURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 391/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 July 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly calculated the delay and failed to consider the assessee's submission regarding the date of service of the assessment order. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a purported delay of 49 days. The assessee claimed the assessment order was served on March 10, 2025, making the appeal filed on April 8, 2025, only 10 days late.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation without properly considering the date of service of the assessment order and the assessee's explanation for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,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: Smt. Prathibha R., A.R
Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 21.07.2026

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 10.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083518526(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer, is bad in law, contrary to facts, arbitrary, perverse and liable to be set aside. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay of 49 days, without appreciating that the delay was bona fide, unintentional and for reasonable cause.

ITA No.391/Bang/2026 Bhoomika Trading Company, Bijapur Page 2 of 5

3.

The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on mere technical grounds of limitation without granting opportunity to explain the delay, in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits is contrary to settled judicial principles that substantive justice must prevail over procedural technicalities, especially where a huge addition of ₹4,72,94,054/- is involved. 5. The reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 pursuant to notice under section 148 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the mandatory conditions for reopening were not satisfied. 6. The learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment on the basis of vague, borrowed and unverified information, without any tangible material or valid ‘reason to believe’ that income had escaped assessment. 7. The assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sections 147 and 144B is liable to be quashed as it is based merely on bank transactions without appreciating the true nature of the appellant’s business. 8. The learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the entire bank credits/turnover of ₹4,72,94,054/- as income of the appellant, ignoring the settled principle that only real income can be brought to tax. 9. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant is a licensed Kaccha Adhatiya in the APMC market, acting only as an agent for farmers, and that the sale proceeds deposited in the bank belong to the farmers and not to the appellant. 10. The learned Assessing Officer erred in ignoring the documentary evidence furnished, including APMC licence, partnership deed, bank statements and explanations regarding agency transactions. 11. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant earns only commission income at 2% as per APMC rules and that only the commission income of ₹9,91,811/- could be assessed. 12. The addition of ₹4,72,94,054/- is arbitrary, excessive, unjustified and unsupported by any incriminating material. 13. The assessment order is bad in law, contrary to facts and violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 14. The appellant prays that the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal may be set aside and the matter be restored for adjudication on merits or such relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

ITA No.391/Bang/2026 Bhoomika Trading Company, Bijapur Page 3 of 5 15. Without prejudice the addition is excessive arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be reduced substantially. 16. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest u/s 234B of the Act. 17. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 18. For these and other grounds that may urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.

Total tax effect Rs.7,37,17,884/-

3.

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by alleging that the appeal was filed belatedly by 49 days and the assessee had not been able to show any sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act and accordingly, did not admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

4.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and vehemently submitted that assessee could not demonstrate that he had been served the assessment order dated 27.2.2025 only on 10.3.2025 as claimed in Form No.35.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has categorically observed that the assessee had filed the appeal after a delay of 49 days. Ongoing through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we observed that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not admit the appeal for adjudication on merits as the condonation of delay was not sought by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was satisfied that the appeal had not been presented within the period prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act i.e. 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment order. Lastly, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was also satisfied that

ITA No.391/Bang/2026 Bhoomika Trading Company, Bijapur Page 4 of 5 the assessee had not been able to show any sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. On the other hand, the contention of the ld. A.R. of the assessee is that the assessee while filing the form no.35 at sl.no.2 had categorically stated that the date of the assessment order is 27.2.2025 and the date of service of order/notice of demand is 10.3.2025 and accordingly at sl.no.14 in response to whether there is delay in filing appeal, the assessee has stated “No”.

5.1 On perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we are unable to understand how the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had calculated the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. Undisputedly, in the present case, the assessment order was passed on 27.2.2025. The assessee had filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 8.4.2025 and therefore, even if we consider that the assessment order was served on the assessee on the same day i.e. on 27.2.2025, then also there is delay of only 10 days in filing the appeal. We also observed that the assessee in form no.35 had categorically stated that the date of service of order/notice of demand was 10th of March, 2025. The ld. A.R. of the assessee before us vehemently submitted that the assessee had received the e-mail only on 10th of March, 2025 and thereafter, the assessee became aware of the order passed by the AO. We are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC completely ignored this fact that the order was only served through e-mail on 10th of March, 2025 and therefore, held that the appeal was not presented within the period prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. This being so, we held that there is no such delay of 49 days as held by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly, we remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh on the merit of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.391/Bang/2026 Bhoomika Trading Company, Bijapur Page 5 of 5

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st July, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 21st 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 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →