MANJUNATHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1731/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2013-1411 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a sufficient cause. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee. It relied on the principles from Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471), emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. The Tribunal also referred to the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596), which condoned a delay of nearly 21 years, making the 427-day delay appear less inordinate. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 209 days for similar reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits and remitted the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manjunatha, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, dated 27.03.2024, for the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was filed with a delay of 427 days. The assessee attributed the delay to being illiterate, lacking knowledge of income tax provisions, and the registered email ID not being in use, leading to unawareness of the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue objected to the condonation of delay, citing the assessee's callous approach. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had also dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 209 days, citing similar reasons of not receiving the assessment order via email and not being tech-savvy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, as required under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to illiteracy, lack of knowledge of income tax laws, and an inactive registered email ID, making them unaware of the CIT(A)'s order. The delay was unintentional, and no benefit accrued to the assessee from it. They relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) and the Chennai Tribunal's decision in People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO (100 ITD 87) (TM) (Chen). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue vehemently objected to the condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee was callous in their approach, demonstrating a careless attitude.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(5),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Madhukeshwar Hegde, A.R
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 27.03.2024 vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1063490793(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Manjunatha, Bengaluru 2. As noted by the Registry, there is a delay of 427 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to a petition for condonation of delay alo

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →