RAVIPATI SUNIL KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3023/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 June 2026AY 2014-1522 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 648 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation offered by the assessee to be plausible and constituting 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A). In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and considering the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue in dispute back to the file of the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. This includes considering the condonation application for the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal also imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee for the negligence shown towards statutory notices before the first appellate authority. The assessee was directed to deposit this cost and furnish the receipt. The first appellate authority was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to decide the case on merits. The Tribunal clarified that further default by the assessee would not entitle them to any leniency.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ravipati Sunil Kumar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Delhi, dated January 10, 2024. This order was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 648 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing the COVID-19 pandemic, business disruptions, and the loss of his father and father-in-law, which caused him mental trauma. The assessee also stated that he was residing in the United Arab Emirates during the year under consideration and had sufficient sources for capital introduction. The assessment order itself, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147, was dated December 26, 2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 648 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause. The assessee argued that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, business losses, and personal tragedies (death of father and father-in-law), which led to mental distress and an inability to attend to tax matters. The revenue did not explicitly argue against condonation but requested costs due to the assessee's negligence before the first appellate authority. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The assessee contended that he could not represent his case before the learned Additional/Joint CIT(A) and requested another opportunity. The revenue conceded that the assessee could not represent his case but suggested levying costs due to the assessee's negligence before the first appellate authority. The ITAT noted that the first appellate authority had provided multiple opportunities, which the assessee failed to utilize.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Hearing: 08.04.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi dated 10.1.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059556676(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 2 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 3 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 4 of 22

3.

At the outset, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that there is a delay of 648 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention on an application for condonation of delay dated 22.12.2025 along with the death certificates of Father & Father-in-law of the assessee, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 5 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 6 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 7 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 8 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 9 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 10 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 11 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 12 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 13 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 14 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 15 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 16 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 17 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 18 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 19 of 22

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 20 of 22

3.1. Perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the assessee and ld. D.R., it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and “sufficient cause” has been shown by the assessee, which prevented him from filing the

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 21 of 22 appeal within the specified period before this Tribunal, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay of 648 days in filing the appeal before us.

4.

Before us both the parties fairly conceded that assesse could not represent his case before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2 , Delhi and accordingly the ld. A.R. of the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). The ld. D.R. although fairly conceded that assessee could not represent his case before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), however, submitted that some cost may be levied owing to the negligence shown by the assessee before the first appellate authority.

4.1 On perusal of the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A), we observed that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) had provided 5 numbers of opportunities to the assessee to make his submission in support of the grounds of appeal, however, the assessee did not file any submissions/response before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). Further, before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also submitted that the appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) was also filed belatedly however, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) without considering the application for condonation straightway dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that the assessee has not shown any interest in pursuing the appeal. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law after considering the condonation application filed by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and thereafter the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) shall proceed to decide on the merit of the case.

4.2 While remitting the matter to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A), we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.1,000/- to the

ITA No.3023/Bang/2025 Ravipati Sunil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 22 of 22 assessee in aggregate owing to the negligence shown to the statutory notices before the first appellate authority. The assessee shall deposit the cost warranted in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). With these terms, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant document/records/submissions/information in support of his claim. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 30th June, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. 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 →