SIDDAPPA GIRIMALLA BADAVAGOL,KOTTALAGI, BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, BELAGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 457/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 June 2026AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 495 days, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to file the appeal on time. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an appeal before the CIT(A) within the prescribed time due to a delay of 495 days, citing reasons like being an agriculturist, residing in a remote village, and being unaware of the proceedings. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a reasonable cause, and if the matter should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, ‘DB’ PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Lakhan G. Jaju
For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 28.11.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 19.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

On merits, assessee has raised the grounds challenging the addition of Rs.71,66,263/- which mainly includes addition for unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act at Rs.71,48,203/- and addition for interest income on investments as Income from other sources at Rs.18,060/-. However, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to 2 Siddappa Girimalla Badavagol

Ground Nos. 1 and 2 stated that ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 495 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. He stated that assessee was prevented by ‘reasonable cause’ and could not file the appeal before ld.CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit and requested to condone the delay and afford one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and did not file the regular return of income. On the basis of information about cash deposit in the bank account held by the assessee, reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 were carried out. Assessee did not appear before ld. Assessing Officer resulting to passing of Best Judgment Assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and concluded the assessment after making the impugned addition of Rs.71,66,263/-. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 495 days citing the following reasons :

"I have received an order u/sec 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Dt. 19-03-2024. Being aggrieved by the order I am preferring to file an appeal with CIT(Appeals). I am an agriculturist and having only agricultural income. I reside in a remote village and not familiar with the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and I was not registered on e-filing portal and was not aware of assessment proceedings initiated against me and hence I couldn't comply with the notices issued on me. I further, assure that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor due to negligence. It occurred due to the unavoidable circumstances of my health. I humbly request your Honor to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal and accept the same for hearing in the interest of justice. Further, I do not benefit by delaying in filing of appeal rather I face unwanted hurdles, troubles, risks and irreparable loss.

3 Siddappa Girimalla Badavagol

My entire income is out of agricultural produce. And the same has been treated as unexplained income without having any material nexus available on record entirely on imaginary grounds, without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. There are good reasonable grounds to get a favorable order. If the delay is condoned nothing is lost to revenue or other wise it will be irreparable loss and harship to me. In view of the matter, it is humbly requested to your goodself to kindly admit the appeal by condoning the delay in the interest of natural justice, fairplay and oblige."

4.

Considering the averments made by the assessee explaining the reason for delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A), we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Panaji/Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 29th June, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →