RED APPLE KITCHEN CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 620/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was plausible and constituted a sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Having condoned the delay, the Tribunal deemed it fit and proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The principle that can be cited is that a short delay in filing an appeal, if supported by a reasonable cause, should be condoned to allow for adjudication on merits. The operative direction is to remit the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Red Apple Kitchen Consultancy Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.02.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 41 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to waiting for an order from the Assessing Officer (AO) on a petition filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT considered the explanation for the delay and decided to condone it. Subsequently, the ITAT decided to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained by the assessee, and if so, whether it should be condoned (turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). - Assessee's argument: The delay was due to waiting for an order from the AO on a Section 154 petition, which constitutes a reasonable cause. - Revenue's argument: Not recorded. 2. Whether the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal should be decided on merits by the ITAT or remitted to the lower appellate authority. - Assessee's argument: The appeal should be allowed on merits, implying a decision by the ITAT or a remand for proper consideration. - Revenue's argument: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 14A,Section 8D,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 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)/NFAC dated 16.02.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, and facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2.

The Appellant denies it

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 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →