ANISHA SAJESH ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 542/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 June 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to reconsider the condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay. The assessee claimed the hearing notice was received late, and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adequate opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to delay without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.

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 WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar Shestri AR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2020-21.

Page 1 of 4

ITA No.:542/Bang/2026

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1).CIT(A) order is opposed to the Law and facts of the case 2).CIT(A) Order erred in passing ex party order without allowing adequate time 3).CIT(A) mail dated on 10th December 2025 reached me only on 15th December 2025. CIT(A) dismissed order on 18th December 2025. 4).CIT(A) dismissed the appeal only on the basis of delay in filling appeal, Appellant has reasonable cause which CIT(A) failed to appreciate. 5).Appellant received amount from UNITED CARGO & TRAVELS PVT LTD; however, appellant had same transferred through bank copy enclosed. 6).In view of the above payment appellant has no taxable income. 7).Appellant stays in Bangalore, Hence the jurisdiction vests with ITO Bangalore. 8).Appellant craves to add or delete any grounds of appeal. 9).Honorable Income tax Appellant Tribunal may kindly allow the render justice to the appellant.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the 3. material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay. As per the assessee, the hearing notice issued by the learned CIT(A) on 10.12.2025 was received by the assessee on 15.12.2025, and before the assessee could respond to the said notice, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide ex parte order dated 18.12.2025. Thus, as per the assessee, sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal, even if the learned CIT(A) was not satisfied with the reasons stated by the assessee in Form No. 35 for seeking condonation of the delay.

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.:542/Bang/2026

Having considered the submissions made during the hearing, we deem 4. it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the learned CIT(A) and explain the reason for not filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, we restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after reconsideration of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. Further, the assessee is directed to submit all the details/documents/affidavit in support of his contention. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates as may be fixed without any default. We order accordingly. With the above directions, the impugned order is satisfied, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical 5. purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore,

Dated, the 29th June, 2026. *VM* Copy to: Page 3 of 4

ITA No.:542/Bang/2026

1.

Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A)

By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT,Bangalore

Page 4 of 4

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →