What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay did not constitute sufficient cause as per the Limitation Act. The assessee was expected to follow up with their representative regarding the appeal status.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 1519 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being unaware of the order passed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT can be condoned based on the assessee's claim of unawareness of the CIT(A)'s order.

Arvind Nagaraj, Bengaluru vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department

Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2679/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Arvind Nagaraj, Vs. ITO, No.10, Sumeru Apartments, Ward – 5(3)(3), 15th Main, 19th Cross, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore– 560 061. PAN : ABTPA 3804 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department. Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2026 O R D E R Per Balakrishnan S, Accountant Member :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals (NFAC, Delhi) [in short “CIT(A)”] vide DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034417833(1) dated 26.07.2021 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 arising out of the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2019.

At the outset, on perusal of the appeal records it is noticed that assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 1519 days. The learned AR argued that the delay was not intentional. The assessee is unaware of the order passed by the NFAC. Therefore, he pleaded that belatedly filing of appeal was

ITA No.2679/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3

not intentional and deliberate but no intimation of the order passed by the First Appellate Authority was given to the assessee. He, therefore, pleaded that the delay may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merits.

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative [in short ‘DR’] strongly objected to the condonation petition.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record including affidavit filed on 05.06.2026. On perusal of the affidavit, it is noticed that assessee has given email id as arvindn36@gmail.com for service of notice etc. The notices received by the assessee from the NFAC was later forwarded to the AR who represented the assessee before the NFAC. Thereafter, the assessee pleads that he was unaware of the status of the proceedings including the order passed under section 250 of the Act on 26.07.2021. Assessee has also stated that only when he tried to file the tax returns for the Assessment Year, he logged into e-filing portal and discovered about the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and immediately he took steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. However, we are of the view that this cannot be considered as sufficient cause as per section 5 of Limitation Act. The assessee was aware of the notices issued and forwarded the same to the AR who ought to have followed up with the AR regarding the status of the appeal and existence of the order, if any, passed by the learned CIT(A). Even though the assessee is under obligation to remain vigilant, the reasons adduced by the assessee does not, in our opinion constitute sufficient cause. No material has been produced to demonstrate the steps taken by the assessee during the entire period of delay. The explanation reflects negligence and lack of diligence rather than circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. We are therefore inclined to reject the petition of condonation of delay of 1519 days thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable.

ITA No.2679/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (BALAKRISHNAN S) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 18.06.2026. /NS/*

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

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

ARVIND NAGARAJ ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments