TANMAYI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DC/ACIT, BANGALORE

Briefly stated facts of the case are assessee being an individual filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-24 on 11.07.2024 admitting the total income of Rs.27,76,840/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny

On being aggrieved by the addition made by the learned AO, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 186 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay stating that she presently is a non-resident and has relied upon the accountant in India to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) found that there is no sufficient cause attributed by the assessee and hence dismissed the appeal in limine.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds:

At the outset of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 186 days stating that there is no sufficient cause furnished by the assessee. He further submitted that assessee has subsequently become a non-resident and has continuously stayed out of India and has relied upon the accountant to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned

He therefore pleaded that the delay in filing appeal is not intentional or deliberate on the part of the assessee. However, the accountant ought to have represented the assessee has not filed the appeal on time. He therefore pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the issue may be remitted to learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative [in short ‘DR’] heavily relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the sole cause furnished by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(E) is by placing reliance on the accountant who was entrusted to file the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The grievance of the assessee is the accountant failed to communicate the statutory notice and the assessment order of the assessee who being a non-resident was unaware of the

In the instant case, the reason attributed by the assessee is similar to the reasons cited in the case of Shri. Suhas Suresh Shet Vs. ITO, International Taxation (supra). Therefore, following the principles of consistency, we are of the opinion that assessee should be provided with one more opportunity before the learned CIT(A) and therefore, we condone the delay of 186 days before the learned CIT(A), as there is sufficient cause, and direct the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the case on merits. Needless to say that assessee shall be provided one more opportunity of being heard and assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the learned CIT(A) is at liberty to adjudicate the case based on the material available on record. Thus, grounds 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Since ground 2 is adjudicated by remanding back to CIT(A), the Other grounds raised are therefore left open.

With respect to the penalty order passed under section 270A of the Act, we find that since the quantum appeal is remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A), the penalty order, being consequential, does not have legs to stand and

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 873/Bang/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal in ITA No 874/Bang/2026 is allowed.