RAHUL SINGH RANA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2873/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2026AY 2013-1415 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 8.5 years, considering the assessee's reasonable cause and the department's prolonged inaction. The Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technicalities, citing Apex Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC after a delay of approximately 8.5 years. The delay was attributed to the assessee's continuous follow-up on a rectification application filed before the AO, which was disposed of after a significant period.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was justifiable and should be condoned. The primary issue was whether to prioritize substantial justice over technical delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 12.02.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 6.11.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082350648(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2013-14.

2 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 2 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 3 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 4 of 15

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as not admitted by not condoning the delay of almost 8.5 years in filing the appeal before him. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention on an application for condonation of delay stating the cause for such delay, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 5 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 6 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 7 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 8 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 9 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 10 of 15

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 11 of 15

3.1 On going through the above application, we observed that the assessee filed a rectification application before the AO against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, which was served on 22.4.2016. The assessee was continuously following up the rectification application, which was ultimately disposed of after a gap of 7.5 years i.e. May, 2016 to December, 2023. The assessee was continuously engaged with the department and acted with utmost

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 12 of 15 diligence and the prolonged inaction of the department directly contributed to the delay in filing the appeal.

Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee was consistently perusing his statutory remedy and the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was caused due to reasonable Bonafide and uncontrollable circumstances. Further, the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and accordingly prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remit the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh on merits of the case in accordance with law.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand vehemently opposed to condone such huge delay in belatedly filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On going through the application for condonation of delay, we observed that the assessee filed a rectification application before the AO against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, which was served on 22.4.2016. The assessee was continuously following up the rectification application, which was ultimately disposed of after a gap of 7.5 years i.e. May, 2016 to December, 2023. The assessee was continuously engaged with the department and acted with utmost diligence and the prolonged inaction of the department directly contributed to the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee was very callous in his approach in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application supported with date chart as well as in affidavit is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 13 of 15 assessee which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

6.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

6.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 14 of 15 of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority.

6.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”.

6.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 8.5 years cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the

ITA No.2873/Bang/2025 Rahul Singh Rana, Bengaluru Page 15 of 15 substantial justice, the delay of 8.5 years has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

6.5 Having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not admit the appeal of the assessee and as requested by the ld. AR of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide on the merits of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 19th May, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →