What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 72 days, finding the assessee's explanation to be a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 72 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a bona fide belief regarding bank data rectification and preoccupation with college duties.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits.

Basavaraj Hugar, Muddebihal vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekhar, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)

Hearing: 27.05.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.202/Bang/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Basavaraj Hugar, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Near Ganesh Temple, Marutinagar, Vijayapura. Muddebihal, Vijayapura – 586 129. PAN – AGCPH 2813 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri R Chandrashekhar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before him.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the

ITA No.202/Bang/2026 Page 2 of 4

assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 72 days. The learned CIT(A), however, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine observing that the assessee had adopted a negligent approach.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was contended that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that Shri Sharana Veereshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd would rectify the incorrect bank data furnished to the department. It was further submitted that the assessee is serving as Principal of a College of Education with limited staff strength and was occupied with completion of semester work and conduct of examinations during the relevant period. Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached the tax consultant at Belagavi and filed the appeal. Hence, it was pleaded that sufficient cause existed for the delay. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed for the condonation of delay and set aside the matter to the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication on merit of the case as per law.

The ld. DR on the other hand did not raise any serious objection on restoring the matter to the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per law.

We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the delay involved is only 72 days. The explanation furnished by the assessee, in our considered opinion, constitutes reasonable and sufficient cause within the meaning of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji & Others reported in 167 ITR 471 has held that a

ITA No.202/Bang/2026 Page 3 of 4

liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. 5.1 In the present case, the learned CIT(A), instead of deciding the matter on merits, dismissed the appeal merely on technical grounds without properly appreciating the explanation offered by the assessee. In our view, such approach defeats the cause of substantial justice. Accordingly, the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the matter, we notice that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the grounds on merits since the appeal itself was dismissed as time barred. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

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

Order pronounced in court on 27th day of May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 27th May, 2026 / vms /

ITA No.202/Bang/2026 Page 4 of 4

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

BASAVARAJ HUGAR,MUDDEBIHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIJAYPURA

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