JAYAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SHIVAMOGGA

ITA 1267/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayamma, filed two appeals for Assessment Year 2017-18. ITA No. 1267/Bang/2026 challenges an order by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Delhi, which dismissed her appeal against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimoga's assessment order. The dismissal was due to the appeal being filed almost two years late. ITA No. 1268/Bang/2026 challenges an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which also dismissed her appeal against a penalty order. This penalty of ₹1,50,000 was imposed under section 271B by the National e-Assessment Centre for alleged violation of section 44AB. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against both dismissals.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's circumstances, including her age, illiteracy, and reliance on others for business and compliance matters, warranted a sensitive approach. The failure to comply with notices before the Assessing Officer and the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) were considered understandable given her situation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay. Consequently, for ITA No. 1267/Bang/2026, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to reassess the income after the assessee furnishes necessary details, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. For ITA No. 1268/Bang/2026, concerning the penalty under section 271B, the Tribunal also restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer, who would reconsider the penalty after reassessing the income, allowing this appeal for statistical purposes as well. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessment or penalty, only on the procedural issue of condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the assessee's stated reasons of illiteracy, unfamiliarity with compliance, and reliance on others, and whether the period of limitation should be extended as per the Supreme Court's suo motu writ petition order. 2. Whether the penalty under section 271B of the Act was rightly imposed, considering the appeal against the quantum assessment has been restored. The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasons beyond her control, including her age, illiteracy, and reliance on employees, and that the delay was only about 41 days when considering the Supreme Court's extension of limitation. She contended that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not affording another opportunity and by arbitrarily rejecting her reasons for delay. The revenue argued that the assessee's failure to respond to notices justified the ex parte assessment and that she had not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 271B,Section 44AB,Section 192,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 43B,Section 194I,Section 194A,Section 234,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

The assessee has filed two appeals for the same assessment year. ITA No. 1267/Bangalore/2026 challenges the appellate order dated 13 January 2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Delhi (the learned CIT(A)). The learned CIT(A) declined to admit the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order dated 15 December 2019, passed by t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,954 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →