MARAGARADAPPARA KARIYAPPA HANUMANTHAPPA,SHIMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIVAMOGGA

ITA 2658/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 June 2026AY 2020-214 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It also held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to incorrect email communication and insufficient time provided by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 80 days due to the death of their tax consultant. The assessee also claimed that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to a wrong email address, and the AO provided insufficient time for compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

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: Shri Hemasundara Rao P, CA

For Respondent: Ms. Shruthi B.L, Addl. CIT (DR)

Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 15.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2658/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Maragaradappara Kariyappa Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hanumanthappa Udugiri, Ward – 01, Somenakoppa Vinobanagar, Shivamogga. Shimoga – 577 204. PAN – ABCPH 2680 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemasundara Rao P, CA Revenue by : Ms. Shruthi B.L, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The appeal filed by the assessee pertains to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 and is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter referred to as the 'learned CIT(A)'] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated 16/06/2025.

There was a delay of 80 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has explained the delay by stating that the concerned Tax Consultant, who was looking after the impugned Income Tax disputes,

ITA No.2658/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 passed away during the relevant time. Therefore, the appeal was filed belatedly by 80 days. The assessee, in support of its contention, has furnished a Affidavit. In view of the above, the ld. AR before us submitted that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and, therefore, the same needs to be condoned.

Considering the reason for the delay as advanced by the assessee, the ld. DR did not raise any objection to the condonation petition filed by the assessee.

We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. In view of the reasons explained by the assessee in its Affidavit detailing the reasons for the delay, we hold that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from preferring the appeal within the stipulated time. Hence, we condone the same and admit the appeal for adjudication on the merits of the case.

4.1 On perusal of the records, we note that there was no [representation/compliance] by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). It was stated by the ld. AR that the notices indicating the date of hearing were issued by the ld. CIT(A) to a wrong email ID. The notices were issued to rajendramc1@gmail.com instead of the correct email hanumgk@gmail.com

4.2 In addition to the above, the ld. counsel also submitted that the last show-cause notice issued by the AO was on 25/08/2022, wherein the time given for compliance was only up to 31/08/2022, which was not

ITA No.2658/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 sufficient. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the necessary details could not be furnished during the assessment proceedings. Hence, the ld. AR prayed for restoring the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

On the contrary, the ld. DR could not bring anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee. However, the ld. DR left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the ld. CIT(A) as the notices fixing the dates of hearing were admittedly issued to an incorrect e-mail address. Consequently, the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the appellate proceedings.

6.1 It is further noticed that the Assessing Officer issued the final show- cause notice dated 25.08.2022 requiring compliance on or before 31.08.2022. Having regard to the limited time afforded to the assessee for furnishing the requisite details and explanations, we find merit in the contention that adequate opportunity was not granted during the course of assessment proceedings. The Department has also not brought on record any material to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. In these circumstances, and in conformity with the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing

ITA No.2658/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after providing the assessee with a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard and to place all relevant materials on record. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the remand proceedings and shall refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 15th day of June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 15th June, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →