VEERAGANTI SUBBARAJU BHAVANA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1)(1), BANGALORE

The present appeal is delayed by 55 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, being a homemaker, she does not regularly operate or monitor her email account, and thus was not aware of the impugned order, as the same was not physically served upon her. Further, as per the assessee, she does not possess the technical knowledge required to navigate the e-filing portal to view such orders online. As per the assessee, only at the end of May 2026, she came to know about the impugned order when her Chartered Accountant brought the same to her knowledge. Accordingly, it is submitted that necessary steps were taken to file the present appeal, and, due to the aforesaid circumstances, which were completely beyond her control, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal after a delay of 55 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 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 2 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: -

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and, for the year under consideration, did not file her return of income. On the basis of the information flagged as per the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, it was observed that the assessee has made certain transactions in securities and also made time deposits in her bank account. Accordingly, after completion of the proceedings under section 148A, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 16/03/2024. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed her return of income on 30/03/2024, declaring a total income of INR 3,55,710. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the said notices. Hence, a show cause notice was issued for passing the order in view of the provisions of section 144 of the Act. The assessee remained non-responsive even to the show cause notice and did not file any submission. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 19/03/2025, passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the source of money utilised for the purchase of security, treated the expenditure as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. Further, the time deposit amounting to INR 15,23,978 was also treated as an unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee and added to his total income under section 69 of the Act.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of 171 days.

As per the assessee, the assessment order and the statutory notices were communicated exclusively through the e-filing portal and email. Further, as per the assessee, being a homemaker, she had no familiarity with the e-filing portal. Further, the email ID on record was used only for compliance purposes and was not regularly accessed by her, and her husband was employed outside India during the year under consideration.

We find 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. Accordingly, 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 21-Aug-2026.