SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2070/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 June 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without proper verification and adherence to natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 488-day delay, as the assessee claimed no delay and did not provide reasons for condonation. The assessee argued that the delay occurred because their tax consultant passed away.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without properly verifying the date of service of the assessment order and affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A(d),Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2070/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Sanjay Kumar Mishra, No. 302, The Deputy Commissioner of Prestige Richmond, Income Tax, Sampangiramnagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Vs. Bengaluru – 560 027. Bengaluru. PAN: AKPPM6580J APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Sri Hema Sunar Rao, CA Assessee by Revenue by : Sri Jeetendra Kumar– CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 06-04-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18-06-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2070/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19 is filed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra (the Assessee/Appellant) against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) dated 18.07.2025 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28.03.2023 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (the Ld. Assessing Officer) was dismissed for the reason that Appeal filed before him was delayed by 488 days and the Assessee has not submitted any reason for the condonation of delay.

ITA No. 2070/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 2. Brief facts of the case shows that the Assessee is an individual whereas as per the information available it was found that Assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs. 52,90,000/- in his savings bank account and cash deposit of Rs. 2,16,88,500/- in his current account during the relevant financial year. It was also found that Assessee has made a cash withdrawal amounting to Rs. 4,42,15,000/- from his current account and cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,06,30,000/- from his savings account during the period. Further it was also found that during the year the Assessee has made a transaction of purchase and sales which are not found to be genuine. As per the e-filing portal it was found that Assessee has filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 37,01,100/-. Since the Assessee has large cash deposit and large cash withdrawal and sources of the transaction remained unexplained, the reopening notice was issued to the Assessee and therefore order u/s. 148A(d) was passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. The Assessee was issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. After that the Assessee replied on two occasions and subsequently three notices u/s. 142(1) were issued along with a letter on a show cause notice on 08.03.2023. All these notices remain unattended and therefore considered the first letter filed by the Assessee on 20.05.2022 wherein it was submitted with copy of the return of income, copy of computation and bank accounts etc., Some of the bank account the Assessee withheld and did not submit. 3. Therefore the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to pass an Assessment Order by making an addition of Rs. 28,03,41,864/-u/s. 68 of the act invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee did not furnish any reply to the show cause notice also. Accordingly the Assessment Order was passed on 28.03.2023 u/s. 144 of the Act determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 33,51,86,864/-.

4.

Assessee aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that Assessee has received the order passed by the first appellate authority on 28.03.2023 on 30.07.2024 and Appeal was filed on 28.08.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the date of service of the demand notice stated to be received by the Assessee on 30.07.2024 is not acceptable. The

ITA No. 2070/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 5 Assessee has received the order by registered email on 28.03.2023. Therefore, he computed a delay of 488 days and held that there is a substantial delay in filing of the Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that Assessee has denied the delay in form No. 35 at column No. 14.However, there is a delay of 488 days. He referred to the provisions of rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules and thereafter he held that Assessee has not submitted any reason for condonation of delay therefore the Assessee has not discharged the sufficient cause and therefore he did not condone the delay of 488 days. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Assessee was dismissed as not admitted.

5.

The Ld. Authorized Representative vehemently submitted that according to the Assessee in form No. 35 the date of order is 28.03.2023.However, the same is received on 30.07.2024. In form No. 35 at column No. 14 the Assessee has specifically stated that there is no delay in filing of the appeal therefore there was no cause for submitting any application for condonation of delay. It was further submitted that without the Ld. CIT(A) asking the Assessee that why there is no delay in filing of the appeal, he computed the delay on his own of 488 days andas in form No. 35 there is no sufficient cause shown according to him, he dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. It was submitted that had the Assessee been asked by the Ld. CIT(A) that there is a delay, it would have been explained to the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

The Ld.Authorized Representative further referred to the grounds of appeal submitting that the Authorized Representative who was looking after the tax matters of the Assesseehas passed away in April, 2024 and therefore the Assessee became aware of the impugned order only thereafter. Thus even if there is a delay, it is for sufficient cause. On the merits of the case it was submitted that Assessee has submitted the complete details before the Ld. Assessing Officer. However, the same has not at all been considered and the Assessment Order is framed.

7.

The Ld.Departmental Representative CIT DR Mr. Jeetendra Kumar vehemently supported the order of the Ld. lower authorities and submitted that according to

ITA No. 2070/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 5 the Assessee itself the order is stated to be passed on a particular date and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in computing the delay of 488 days. As there is no sufficient cause shown in form No. 35, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee.

8.

We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the Ld. lower authorities. We have carefully perused also form No. 35 filed by the Assessee. In form No. 35, the Assessee has stated that the Assessment Order is passed on 28.03.2023.However, the service of the order was stated to be 30.07.2024. In column No. 14, Assessee has categorically stated that there is no delay in filing of the appeal. Therefore according to the Assessee there is no requirement of filing of any application for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim of the Assessee that date of service of Assessment Order is 30.07.2024 stating that Assessee was given Assessment Order by email dated 31.03.2023. We do not know where from the Ld. CIT(A) has gathered this information. Even if it is gathered by the Ld. CIT(A) independently, actually hecould have confronted the same to the Assessee that why in form No. 35 the Assessee is stating that there is no delay in filing of the Appeal despite the fact that order is served on the Assessee by email on the same date. Therefore the principles of natural justice were violated in this case. The Assessee is also correct that according to him there is no delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) naturally therefore he should not have filed any application for condonation of delay. This would have been a contradictory statement by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee has explained that he received the order only on 30.07.2024 as the tax consultant who was entrusted with the job already passed away in April 2024. The death certificate is also shown wherein the tax consultant unfortunately passed away on 22.04.2024.

9.

In view of the above facts we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee holding that there is a delay of 488 days which has not been explained by the Assessee by showing sufficient cause

ITA No. 2070/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 5 even when the Assessee is stating in form No. 35 there is no delay in filing of the Appeal. Accordingly we restore the whole matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Assessee to explain before the Ld. CIT(A) that whether the date of service of assessment order mentioned in column No. 2(C) of the date of receipt of the order 30.07.2024 is correct or not. If the Assessee shows it to be the correct that, there is naturally no delay in filing of the appeal but it is subject to verification by the Ld. CIT(A). If the Ld. CIT appeal does not agree with the contention of the Assessee that there is no delay in filing of the Appeal, he is directed to issue a notice and Assessee is also directed to explain the delay in filing of the Appeal by showing sufficient cause. The Ld. CIT(A) may examine this issue that whether there exists a sufficient cause or not in condoning the delay and then decide the issue afreshif the delay is condoned, the issue may be decided on merits of the case.

10.

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

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

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 18th June, 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →