ALLI MUNISWAMY NARAYAN ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2727/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the medical evidence provided by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 43-day delay, attributed to the assessee's ill health. The assessee had failed to respond to a show cause notice from the AO due to health reasons, leading to additions being confirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's ill health should be condoned. Whether the additions made by the AO were justified when the assessee could not respond to the show cause notice due to health issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Ms. Sahana T H M, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2727/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

Shri Alli Muniswamy Narayan, The Income Tax No. 4/5, Gayathrinagar S.O., Officer, Bengaluru North, Ward – 2(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 021. Bengaluru. PAN: ABGPN5946B Vs.

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Ms. Sahana T H M, Advocate

Revenue by : Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18-05-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 08/09/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2023-24.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 26/12/2023. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) and a refund was also given by the department. Thereafter the

Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 2727/Bang/2025

assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and several notices were issued. The assessee also filed his submissions. Finally a show cause notice was issued on 24/01/2025. The assessee was not able to respond to the said show cause notice because of his health conditions and therefore the AO had made the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In the said assessment, the AO had not accepted the lease amount received against the poultry farm and treated the said as income from house property. Similarly, the AO had treated the credits in his bank accounts as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Another addition u/s. 69A was made on the cash deposits made into the bank account. Even though the assessee had responded to the earlier notices, since the assessee had not responded to the show cause notice, the AO had confirmed the said additions.

3.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 43 days. The Ld.CIT(A) had calculated the aid delay and not satisfied with the reasons stated in the application to condone the said delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

4.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order is dated 26/02/2025 and the assessee had filed the appeal on 10/04/2025 and also explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.AR further submitted that because of ill health of assessee, the appeal could not be presented in time. In support of the said contention, the Ld.AR also filed some medical documents to show that the assessee is having health issues and prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and the issue may be remitted to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits.

Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 2727/Bang/2025

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that the reasons adduced by the assessee is not a valid one and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had correctly not accepted the said reasons and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

7.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8.

The only dispute involved in this appeal is against the rejection order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had not furnished any valid reasons for condoning the said delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before him. We have also considered the reasons stated in the application and the assessee had elaborately stated the reasons for not presenting the appeal in time. The main reason stated by the assessee is that because of his health condition, he was not able to move independently and therefore the appeal could not be filed in time. Only after the improvement of health, the assessee took steps to file the appeal. We have also considered the medical prescriptions furnished by the assessee and also the diagnostic reports which evidenced that the assessee was suffering from illness. It is not the case of the Ld.CIT(A) that the records are not genuine. In such circumstances, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal seems to be not a correct one. Further, the delay is only 43 days and the reasons stated are also on health grounds.

9.

The AO had also confirmed the additions only on the ground that the assessee had not filed their objections to the show cause notice. Even though the assessee had cooperated with the department and filed replies and documents to the various notices issued, the assessee was not able to respond to the show cause notice in view of his ill health.

10.

Considering the entire facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by condoning the delay of 43 days in filing the appeal before him and remit this issue to his file for deciding the issue afresh.

Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 2727/Bang/2025

11.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 18th May, 2026. /MS /

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →