VENKATARAMAPPA,KOLAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOLAR

The present appeal is delayed by 89 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. As per the assessee, the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and only one notice was issued on 19/09/2025. Further, it is submitted that the said notice was issued to an email address which does not belong to the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has also furnished a copy of the email notice. Thus, as per the assessee, he was not aware of the order passed by the learned CIT(A), as the order was not served by post and no email communication was received at the registered email address of the assessee. Further, the assessee submitted that at the end of February 2026, the assessee received the recovery notice, pursuant to which the assessee approached his Chartered Accountant to seek advice, and only thereafter did the impugned order come to the knowledge of the assessee. Thus, as per the assessee, after taking necessary advice, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal after a delay of 89 days.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the Rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee does not stand to benefit from 2 the late filing of the present appeal. In view of the above and having perused the application and affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period, and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the appeal.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

However, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, held that the reasons stated by the assessee are general and unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence. Further, the learned CIT(A) held that during the assessment proceedings, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued, which was duly responded to by the assessee. It was also held that a centralised communication was also sent by speed post, and the assessee filed detailed factual submissions during the assessment proceedings, which disproves any lack of awareness or inability to access departmental communication on the part of the assessee. On the basis that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, the learned CIT(A) held that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period.

Upon perusal of the assessment order dated 23/12/2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, we find that the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act was not only generated online and served on the assessee’s e-filing account, but a copy of the notice was also sent to the assessee by registered post. In response thereto, the assessee filed his response. However, disagreeing with the submissions of the assessee, it was held, vide an order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21/03/2024. However, the assessee did not file any return response to the said notice. Further, the assessee also did not respond to various statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. It is evident from the record that simultaneous reminder notices were also issued and served through speed post. Thereafter, a show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued by the Assessment Unit, which was responded to by the assessee, and the bank statements were furnished. 5

Thus, from the perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the notices were not only served to the assessee on the e-filing account but also served through speed post. Thus, to say that the assessee responded to the notices issued via email is not entirely correct, as the notices were also issued and served on the assessee by speed post. Further, the assessee's participation in the assessment proceedings does not, in any manner, disprove that he is an agriculturist residing in the village. There is also no material to dispute the assessee’s submission that he has no knowledge of emails or English, and that consulting/appointing an Authorised Representative took some time for the assessee.

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) fall within the parameters for grant of condonation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S. Katiji (supra). Therefore, substantial justice needs to be preferred when pitted against the technical consideration. Further, in the present case, it is evident that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Thus, we are of the view that delay should be condoned. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo consideration, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal before us do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-Aug-2026.