CHANDRASHEKAR ADAPPA GANGANAGOUDAR,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AND TPS, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

Briefly, the facts are that the assessee, an individual engaged in agriculture and retail trading of food grains such as wheat, bajra, jowar and pulses including Page 1 of 4

On examination of the records, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had been a non-filer for several earlier years and had filed returns for subsequent assessment years only after notices under section 148 were issued. The profit and loss account showed turnover of ₹1,37,28,020 and purchases of ₹1,14,44,122, resulting in a gross profit of 14.2%. Since the assessee did not furnish complete party-wise details of purchases and sales, such as names and addresses, the Assessing Officer held that the purchases were not fully verifiable and that the declared profit did not reflect the true business income. He therefore estimated profit at 15% of total sales receipts. He also noted that, as the turnover exceeded ₹1 crore, the assessee was required to get his accounts audited under section 44AB, which he had not done. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed profit at ₹20,59,203 and, after reducing the income already offered at ₹9,48,240, made an addition of ₹11,10,963 in the assessment order dated 12 March 2025.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessment order was passed on 12 March 2025, whereas the appeal was filed on 5 July 2025, resulting in a delay of 84 days. In Form No. 35, the assessee explained that he had to consult an expert for filing the appeal and was required to travel to Belagavi, about 200 kilometers from his residence. He further stated that, during this period, he was suffering from jaundice and had been advised bed rest and not to travel. After recovering, he took steps to file the appeal,

The learned CIT(A) observed that the medical certificate, though dated 10 April 2025, covered the period of illness from 10 April 2025 to 8 July 2025. According to the learned CIT(A), the certificate did not justify condonation of delay because it commenced on the last date of limitation for filing the appeal. He also doubted whether a doctor could, on 10 April 2025, anticipate a recovery period of nearly three months. Holding that the delay was not supported by sufficient cause, the learned CIT(A) declined to condone it, did not admit the appeal and dismissed the same.

We have heard Shri Ashok Mudnur, Chartered Accountant, learned authorized representative for the assessee, and Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, learned Standing Counsel for the Department.

We find that the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal. Form No. 35 was admittedly filed on 5 July 2025 against the assessment order received by the assessee on 13 March 2025. The assessee explained the delay in Form No. 35 and supported the explanation with a medical certificate. The learned CIT(A), however, rejected the explanation on the ground that the certificate was issued on 10 April 2025 for the period from 10 April 2025 to 8 July 2025, and observed that the certificate commenced on the last date of limitation. According to him, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 10 April 2025, and a doctor could not have anticipated a recovery period of almost three months.

In our view, the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, namely 13 March 2025. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeal was 12 April 2025 and not 10 April 2025, as recorded by the learned CIT(A). Further, once the assessee furnished a medical certificate explaining the illness and the treating doctor certified a recovery period of three months, there was no justification to doubt the certificate without cogent reasons merely to refuse condonation of delay. Where sufficient cause is shown, delay in filing an appeal should be condoned by adopting a liberal approach. Fault-finding in

Accordingly, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

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