HOSURU MALLAPPA ONKARAPPA,CHICKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHICKMAGALUR

ITA 2100/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2019-202011 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 328 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal noted the assessee's limited education, rural background, and lack of familiarity with tax procedures and electronic communication. While acknowledging that the law of limitation cannot be ignored, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling in H. Guruswamy, which dealt with a much longer delay and repeated defaults. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be bona fide, considering her circumstances and reliance on a tax practitioner. Therefore, the appeal was to be decided on merits. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was based on a declaration furnished under Rule 114B, stating it could not be treated as a separate unexplained cash deposit. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 15,45,000/- representing cash deposits, finding that the assessee had reasonably explained the source through prior cash withdrawals from the bank and by producing evidence of agricultural land holding and sale of agricultural produce. The Tribunal concluded that the entire addition of Rs. 30,45,000/- was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual engaged in agricultural activity, failed to file a Return of Income (ROI) for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Revenue initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after noting cash deposits of Rs. 15.45 lakh and a declaration of Rs. 15 lakh as agricultural income under Rule 114B. An assessment order was passed on February 29, 2024, assessing total income at Rs. 30.45 lakh. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], but the appeal was delayed by 328 days. The assessee attributed the delay to her limited education (4th standard), rural background, lack of knowledge of tax procedures, and reliance on a local tax practitioner. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 328 days, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The delay was unintentional and caused by the assessee's lack of knowledge, limited education, rural background, and unfamiliarity with tax procedures and electronic communication. She relied on a local tax practitioner who she believed was handling the matter. The delay was bona fide, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 was cited to support a liberal approach. Revenue's Contention: The delay of 328 days was substantial, and the law of limitation cannot be ignored merely for adopting a liberal approach or on the ground of substantial justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (since deceased) through LRs., 2025 INSC 53, was relied upon to emphasize that the law of limitation cannot be defeated by such approaches. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 30.45 lakh made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding cash deposits and agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal, which is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for A.Y. 2019-20 vide order date

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →