SRIKANTH BOLLAPALLY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 253/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 April 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 208 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 208 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving the ex-parte order from the CIT(A) and only becoming aware of it upon receiving a penalty order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was caused by a sufficient and reasonable cause, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for assessee
Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

2.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the delay occurred on account of the assessee not being aware of the ex-parte appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. It was contended that no communication of the said order dated 11.04.2025 was received

ITA No.253/Bang/2026 Page 2 of 3

by the assessee. The assessee came to know of the said order only on 22.12.2025 upon receipt of a penalty order dated 19.12.2025 passed under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Immediately thereafter, the assessee contacted his counsel and filed the present appeal. It was thus submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to sufficient and reasonable cause.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative opposed the condonation; however, he fairly submitted that the matter may be decided in accordance with law.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is settled law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is to be adopted where sufficient cause is shown. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the assessee that he was unaware of the impugned order and came to know of it only subsequently appears to be bona fide. The delay, in our considered view, is supported by reasonable cause and does not appear to be due to any deliberate inaction or negligence. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be deposited with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Proof of such payment shall be placed on record.

4.1 Since the appeal arises from an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), and in the interest of providing a fair opportunity to the assessee, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the

ITA No.253/Bang/2026 Page 3 of 3

file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details/documents as may be required by the Assessing Officer.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 29th day of April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 29th April, 2026 / vms / 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

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →