What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to payment of cost, finding that the appeal before the CIT(A) was disposed ex parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a substantial delay. The assessee attributed the delay to disengagement of their earlier Chartered Accountant and lack of awareness of the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. The secondary issue was the proper adjudication of the appeal on merits.

Rajkumar Chanbasappa Khandre… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri Janak Purohit, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for assessee

Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 06.05.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2020–21.

The appeal has been filed with a delay of substantial period. An application for condonation of delay has been filed supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The assessee submits that: • He is an agriculturist residing in Bidar district.

ITA No.716/Bang/2026 Page 2 of 3

• The earlier Chartered Accountant was disengaged which resulted in lack of effective representation.

• The assessee was unaware of the disposal of appeal by CIT(A).

• The impugned order came to his knowledge only in December 2025 through subsequent departmental communication.

• Immediately thereafter, he collected records and filed appeal before this Tribunal.

The Revenue opposes condonation on the ground of inordinate delay and lack of diligence.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the affidavit. It is an admitted position that the appeal before ld. CIT(A) was disposed ex parte for non-compliance, and thereafter, the assessee also remained unaware of the appellate order due to admitted lapse in communication with his earlier consultant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions has held that a liberal approach should be adopted where sufficient cause is shown and substantial justice balances technical considerations. In the present case, though the explanation offered is not fully satisfactory in all respects, the ends of justice would be met if the assessee is afforded one final opportunity, subject to suitable cost. Accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay, subject to imposition of cost. Considering the negligence and delay in pursuing appellate remedies, we deem it appropriate to impose cost.

4.1 The assessee is directed to pay a cost of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF). Since the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was disposed of without effective

ITA No.716/Bang/2026 Page 3 of 3

participation of the assessee and no proper adjudication on merits has taken place, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh examination. In the interest of justice, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The learned CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, permit filing of additional evidence, if any, in accordance with law, adjudicate the appeal afresh by a speaking order on merits. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost as directed. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 6th day of May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 6th May, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

RAJKUMAR CHANBASAPPA KHANDRE,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, BIDAR

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