What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Department failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal did not admit the appeal.

The Department filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(Appeals) that allowed the assessee's appeal. The Department's appeal was filed with a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the Department was condonable due to sufficient cause. Whether the ITAT should admit an appeal filed beyond the stipulated time without adequate reasons.

ACIT vs Daiwa Corporate Advisory India… | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & HON’BLE SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

आदेश / ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 06-Mar- 2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 21.9.2022 was allowed and therefore the Department is aggrieved and has filed the appeal raising the following grounds of appeal:-

1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deletion of disallowance made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without proper examination of additional evidence? 2) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in disposing the appeal without giving opportunity or calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?

At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appellate order was received by the AO on 6.3.2025, but the appeal is filed on 25.8.2025. Therefore on 25.8.2025 the Registry issued a defect notice stating that the appeal is time barred by 86 days. The AO has furnished a petition for condonation of delay. The reasons for the delay are as under:-

The order of CIT(A)/ NFAC in the case of M/s. DAIWA CORPORATE ADVISORY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PAN AAQCS9915B; for AY 2020-21 passed vide ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074116090(1) dated 06.03.2025 was received in the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru on 06.03.2025.

In accordance to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT should have been filed on or before 05.05.2025. However, the same was not filed within stipulated time period. 4. Thus, there is a delay of 112 days while filing of second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT against the order of CIT(A) in the case of above mentioned assessee. 5. The delay for filing of second appeal was on account of unintentional and unavoidable reason and in lieu of assessment proceedings getting time barred on 31.03.2025 and reopening proceedings getting time barred on 30.06.2025 and 31.07.2025, the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT could not have been filed on time. 6. The delay of 112 days is inadvertent and there is no malafide intention on the Office of the undersigned in respect of the delay in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 7. Thus, it is requested that the delay in filing of second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT may kindly be condoned and the application be considered on the merits of the case.

The ld. DR reiterated the reasons for the delay and stated that there is sufficient cause for the delay of 86 days.

The ld. AR, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, vehemently contested that petition for condonation of delay did not show any sufficient cause and therefore the appeal of the Revenue should not be admitted at all.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Admittedly the appeal is late by 86 days as per the defect memo issued by the Registry. However, the ld. AO in the condonation petition has stated that there is a delay of 112 days while filing the second appeal. According to the ld. AO the appeal should have been filed on or before 5.5.2025, however the same was filed on 25.8.2025. The reason stated by the ld. AO is “The delay for filing of second appeal was on account of unintentional and unavoidable reason and in lieu of assessment proceedings getting time barred on 31.03.2025 and reopening proceedings getting time barred on 30.06.2025 and 31.07.2025, the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT could not have been filed on time.”

On perusal of the above reasons, we do not find any reason to say that there is any sufficient cause shown by the ld. AO for delay in filing of the appeal.

According to the provisions of section 253 of the Act, without showing any sufficient cause, the appeal could not have been admitted by the Tribunal. In view of the same, we do not admit the appeal filed by the AO and dismiss the same.

In the result, appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SOUNDARARAJAN K. PRASHANT MAHARISHI JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Bangalore Dated: 21st May, 2026.

/Desai S Murthy / Copy to: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), 1 BMTC BUILDING, KORMANGALA 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU- 560095, KARNATAKA DAIWA CORPORATE ADVISORY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 2 SECOND FLOOR,, NO. 40, VITTAL MALLYA ROADBANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE G.P.O., BENGALURU-560001, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE CIT(APPEALS) 5 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH-A

BY ORDER

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., BANGALORE

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. DAIWA CORPORATE ADVISORY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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