MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2404/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 April 2026AY 2009-109 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the communication lapse beyond the assessee's control. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal late by 846 days because the CIT(A)'s order was sent to a retired employee's personal email address instead of the company's registered email. The company only discovered the order during a portal review.

What were the issues?

Whether there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal due to incorrect communication of the order. Whether the CIT(A) properly dismissed the appeal without ensuring proper service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrasekhar, Advocate, Shri Subramanian – JCIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10

M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited, The Deputy Commissioner TTMC Building, A Block, of Income Tax, 5th Floor, BMTC Shantinagar, Circle -12 (1) [presently Vs. Bengaluru – 560 027. circle – 4(1)(2)], PAN: AACCM2873L Bengaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri V Chandrasekhar, Advocate Shri Subramanian – JCIT Revenue by :

Date of Hearing : 19-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27-04-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2009-10 is filed by Assessee against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 28.04.2023 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26.06.2014 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 12(1), Bangalore (the Ld. Assessing Officer) was dismissed. The Assessee is in appeal before us.

2.

At the time of filing the Appeal, it was pointed out that this Appeal is filed late by 840 days. The Assessee is in Appeal against the Appellate Order passed on 28.04.2023 which was also stated to be the date of service, but the Appeal was filed before the ITAT on 17.10.2025 and therefore the registry has computed the delay of 840 days in filing of the Appeal.

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 9

3.

The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri V Chandrasekhar, Advocate filed an application for condonation of delay. He also filed an affidavit confirming the facts stated in the condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay reads as under:-

i. The Appellant is Government Company and an order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 was passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28.04.2023.

ii. The Appellant submits that the said order was downloaded from the Income Tax e-filing portal, as the Hearing Notice under Section 250 and the order under Section 250 of the Act were sent to the email ID cschoragi1962@gmail.comassociated with one of the permanent employee of the Appellant company who retired on 31.05.2022.

iii. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), preferred the present appeal under Section 253 of the Act before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 17.10.2025, giving rise to a delay of approximately 846 days from the date of passing of the order.

iv. The Appellant submits that the email ID cschoragi1962@gmail.combelonged to Mr. Choragi, who was the then DGM (Accounts), a permanent employee of the company and had retired from the services of the company on 31.05.2022, after which the Department continued to send notices and the final order to the retired official's personal email instead of the company's registered profile email ID Gmfsmcl@gmail.com. The ex-DGM (Accounts) did not forward any such notices or orders to the Appellant company post-retirement, leaving the company unaware of the proceedings.

v. It is herewith submitted that as evidenced by the screenshot below from the e-Filing portal, the notices and orders under Section 250 of the Act were communicated solely to the email address of the Ex-DGM (Accounts), Mr. Choragi (cschoragi1962@gmail.com).

vi. The portal records show a Hearing Notice sent to this personal/personal-official email. However, Mr. Choragi had already retired from the services of the Company on 31.05.2022, nearly a year before the order was passed.

vii. Simultaneously, a screenshot of the registered Email Address of the Appellant company on the income tax portal clearly shows the active address to be Gmfaksmcl@gmail.com. Because the Department relied on an outdated contact of a retired official, the current management and the Finance Department were never notified of the proceedings or the final order.

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 9

viii. Consequently, the management and Finance Department of the Appellant company were completely unaware of the hearings and the issuance of the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 due to the technical error in communication address on the portal.

ix. Further, the office of the General Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the Appellant company underwent frequent administrative transitions during the relevant period:

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 9

a. Mr. Nishchith V D served from February 2021 to November 2023;

a. Mr. Avinash Gerald took over on 14.12.2023 per Government Notification;

b. Smt. Zohra Jabeen served from December 2023 to February 2025; and

d. Mr. K R Shivakumar assumed charge on 06.03.2025.

Copy of the appointment letters of the above Deputed state officers of the Appellant company are herewith annexed for your Honour's reference and records as Annexure A1,A2 & A3.

x. The existence of the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 was discovered only in October 2025 during a thorough review of the IT portal by the company's Chartered Accountant, upon which the Appellant immediately took remedial action by filling the present appeal on 17.10.2025.

xi. The Appellant relied upon the Income Tax Department system's communications and was not aware of the order due to the aforementioned lapses, believing the matter was still pending.

xii. The Appellant has a strong case on merits and balance of convenience is in its favour and submits that "sufficient cause" for the delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

xiii. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to take a compassionate view, condone the delay of 846 days in filing the present appeal which occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the Appellant, and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.

xiv. If this application for condonation of delay is not allowed, the Appellant would suffer great hardship and irreparable injury, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay is condoned.

xv. It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the Appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or Injury would be caused to the Respondents if this application of condonation of delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 and also in the case of Ram Nath Sao Alias Ram Nath Sahu &ors v. Gobardhan Sal & Others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195. Further the Appellant relies on another decision of

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 9 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2000] 9 Supreme Court Cases 733.

xvi. The appellant also places reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT-Bangalore) in ITA No. 1111/Bang/2019 dated 29.04.2022 where this Hon'ble Tribunal condoned a delay of 1037 days.

xvii. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Hegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in ITA No. 2785/Bang/2004 order dated 25/04/2006 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has condoned the delay of 1,331 days i.e. 3 Years, 8 Months and 22 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

xviii. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in ITA No. 532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/10/2011the Hon'ble High Court has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the learned CIT[A], the relevant observation is at para 28 page 72 of the order.

xix. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar (1987) 30 Taxmann 133 (Madras). The Hon'ble High Court observed that ".... Since in this case, the assessee has been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the revenue may not be right in his submission that the appeal filed under section 17 is an appeal against the original order of assessment under the Act which was passed about 20 years ago as we find that the appeal is one against an order of rejection of relief by the assessing authority. Thus, though we are not inclined to agree with the Tribunal that there is no question of limitation in such cases, we are inclined to hold that the AAC is right in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, question No.1 is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue."

xx. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No.288/Coch/2017 dated 25.06.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal condoned the delay of 2819 days delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

xxi. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal takes a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 846 days in filing the present appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissionerof Income-tax (Appeals) dated 28.04.2023 and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 9 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative extensively referred to the reason for delay in filing of the Appeal.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative Shri Subramanian S, JCIT stated that there is an inordinate delay in filing of the Appeal by the Government Company without any sufficient cause is merely a self-serving statement. Therefore, the Appeal cannot be considered.

6.

We have carefully considered the rival contention and find that it is the claim of the Assessee which was earlier known as M/s. Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited, a Government company, that the order was passed by the First Appellate Authority on 28.04.2023. Further, the order was sent to e-mail id of one of the employees who retired already on 31.05.2022. The e-mail was also shown not to be the domain email id of the Government of Karnataka or of the Assessee Company but of Gmail. Therefore, the Assessee could not have accessed that Gmail id of the retired or ex-employee of the Assessee. Had it been the company domain name email, it could have been accessed. Thus, the Assessee was helpless in reaching that id.

7.

The registered e-mail Id of the Assessee was also provided to the revenue authorities but none of the notices were sent or the orders were sent to this e- mail id. Thus, it was apparent that the revenue contacted the Assessee on the e-mail id of the retired employee and not on the registered e-mail address of the company. The communication of the notices to the e-mail id of the employee with primary e-mail id was shown to be of the Assessee Company but communication was made on the e-mail id of the retired employee.

8.

It is also not unusual that in the Government organization, frequent changes in the roles and responsibilities of the officers and because of that it may happen that at the time of handing over the charges, the private emails could have not been given access to the assuming officers.

9.

In this case, the Assessee came to know in the October, 2025 on review of the income tax portal that there is already an ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(A) passed in case of the company. This happened somewhere in the month of

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 9 October, 2025 and immediately thereafter the Assessee filed Appeal on 17.10.2025.

10.

Thus, according to us there is a sufficient cause in filing of Appeal late before us. The reasons shown before us are bonafide and not disputed by the revenue. Though several judicial precedents are set before us, but, we find that sufficient cause may differ according to the situation and circumstances of each Assessee and organization. No straight jacket formula or ready to fit answers are available for the same. One has to apply his mind by putting himself into the shoes of the other person to examine whether in such cases, the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to comply with a particular provision of law which was beyond his control and he got benefitted. In this case, we are of the view that the Appeal filed by the Assessee late by 846 days deserves to be admitted. Hence, we admit the same.

11.

Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the Assessee filed its return of income which was subject to Assessment u/s. 143(3) which was revised by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of The Act. On the basis of revision, Assessment Order was passed on 26.06.2024. Against that the Assessee filed Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). A detailed statement of facts was furnished before him contesting each of the addition. However, unfortunately the Assessee was issued 15 notices which were sent on the e-mail id of the same retired employee and not on the primary email id of the assessee company. In view of the above facts and as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) about non-compliance for 15 times, he dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.

12.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted in para no. 6.1 that this Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order passed pursuance to revision u/s. 263 of the Act and further stated that the Appeal against the order u/s. 263 of the Act is pending before the ITAT. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that as Assessee has not responded to 15 notices, he is not aware about the fate of this Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) could not have been oblivious of his power toenquire about the same from the Ld. Assessing Officer also.

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 9 13. We further find that form no. 35 filed by the Assessee has categorically stated that the notices must be sent to the Appellant at its address at BMTC, Shantinagar, TTMC Building, A Block, 5th Floor, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. In fact, there is no attempt made by the Ld. CIT(A) to serve any of the 15 notices to the Assessee at the given address. The Ld. CIT(A) is also duty bound to issue a notice to the Ld. Assessing Officer, because, he is also one of the person representing his case. However, 15 notices have not been responded by a Government Organization, the Ld. CIT(A) should have used his own wisdom at least to communicate with the Ld. Assessing Officer and get the notice served on the Assessee. This was because the Government Organization could not have vanished in thinair and could not have failed to represent its case only because of the reason that a private e-mail id of the employee to which notices were served, Assessee remains not responded.

14.

In view of the above facts, it is apparent that though Assessee did not get a proper opportunity of hearing and therefore whole of the Appeal filed by the Assessee requires to be restored back to the desk of the Ld. CIT(A). Now, the Assessee is also directed to make a submission in its completeness before him. The Ld. CIT(A) may examine the same and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, decide the issue on the grounds of Appeal afresh.

15.

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 27th April, 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent

ITA No. 2404/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 9 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →