SHIVAKUMAR BIRADAR,VIAJAYAPURA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, , VIAJAYAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3056/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 April 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding the assessee's reasons plausible. The Tribunal also remitted the entire issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's inability to represent his case earlier.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 637 days. The assessee also failed to represent his case before the AO, leading to an ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, and whether the case should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's failure to represent his case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 25.02.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30/10/2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082171782(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.3056/Bang/2025 Shivakumar Biradar, Vijayapura Page 2 of 5

ITA No.3056/Bang/2025 Shivakumar Biradar, Vijayapura Page 3 of 5 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 not condoning the delay of 637 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

3.1 Having the heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as ld. D.R., it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the assessee is very callous in his approach in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Further, when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserve to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non- deliberate delay. Moreover, no counter affidavit was filed by the revenue denying the claim made by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the belated appeal was filed deliberately. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. Therefore, in our opinion, this is a fit case to condone the delay of 637 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.2 Now having admitted the appeal for adjudication by condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, We also observed that the assessee could not represent his case before the AO and accordingly the AO has passed an assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 25/03/2023. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee could not represent his case before both the authorities below due to the ill health issues (chronic and acute skin condition due to auto immune disorder) as well as his personal marriage related issues of the assessee and accordingly prayed that one more

ITA No.3056/Bang/2025 Shivakumar Biradar, Vijayapura Page 4 of 5 opportunity may be granted before the ld. 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 deemed it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. AO to decide a fresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.

4.

Further, while remitting the matter to the file of AO, we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.2,000/- to the assessee in aggregate owing to the continued negligence shown to the statutory notices at both the levels. The assessee shall deposit the cost warranted in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the AO. With these terms the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to produce the copy of the salary certificate from his two employers along with the copy of bank statements, copy of Form 26AS, copy of investment made chapter -VIA or any other evidences as may be required by AO for the adjudication of the case. We hereby clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th Apr, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 30th Apr, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.3056/Bang/2025 Shivakumar Biradar, Vijayapura Page 5 of 5

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →