What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were general and did not establish a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Therefore, the appeal was not admitted.

The Department filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which was allowed. The appeal was filed with a delay of 507 days. The Assessing Officer sought condonation of this delay, citing preoccupation with assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the reasons provided by the Revenue constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

DCIT vs Chikkamariyappa Girish… | 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(A)-11 dated 17-May-2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer [AO] was allowed wherein the issue was that the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee and protective addition in the case of Smt. Sharada were deleted, prior to the conclusion of the finality of the protective addition.

The appellate order was passed on 17.5.2024 which was received by the ld. AO on 27.5.2024, however the appeal was filed on 19.12.2025. The defect notice was issued to the ld. AO by the Registry on 19.12.2025 that the appeal is time barred by 506 days.

The ld. AO has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons shown by the ld. AO is that his office was substantially occupied with proceedings and compliances arising out of the assessment provisions, which required immediate attention and involved extensive preparation, documentation and coordination. Hence, owing to the substantial time and resources devoted to the said assessment proceedings, the filing of the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal could not be attended to within the prescribed period and therefore the delay of 507 days may be condoned. The limitation Certificate dated 15.12.2025 directed the AO to file the appeal.

The ld. DR reiterated the same reasons for delay in filing of the appeal.

We have perused the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act wherein the Tribunal may admit the appeal after the expiry of limitation period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the ld. AO has merely given general reasons and did not say why there is a delay of 507 days and if it was so it is for sufficient cause. The petition says as under:-

“The appellate order of the CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru was received on 27.05.2024. This office was substantially occupied with proceedings and compliances arising out of the assessment provisions, which required immediate attention and involved extensive preparation, documentation and coordination. Hence, owing to the substantial time and resources devoted to the said assessment proceedings, the filing of the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal could not be attended to within the prescribed period.”

Merely mentioning the fact that the AO was busy with assessment proceedings and therefore there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as he could not attend the appellate work within time does not inspire any confidence to say that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal.

Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is not admitted and 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: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), 1 3RD FLOOR, CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU, BENGALURU-560001, KARNATAKA CHIKKAMARIYAPPA GIRISH, SK 34 NEW COLONY SHIMOGA 2 BHADRAVAHI NEW MODEL COLONY SO, SHIVAMOGGA-577301. KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT 4 THE CIT(APPEALS)-11, BANGALORE 5 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH “A”

BY ORDER

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. CHIKKAMARIYAPPA GIRISH, BHADRAVATHI

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