HEXAD INFOSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANNERGHATTA ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING

ITA 1713/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Hexad Infosoft Private Limited, filed appeals against orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. For AY 2015-16, the assessee did not file a return of income. Based on TDS information (Section 194A) of Rs. 67,75,000, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment. The assessee failed to respond to statutory notices and a show cause notice. Consequently, the AO made an addition of Rs. 67,75,000 as business income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) with a delay of 65 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to insufficient cause for the delay.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, as the assessee was unaware of the Assessment Order and had a bonafide belief that their professional would manage the appeal filing. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal noted that there is no presumption of deliberate delay or culpable negligence. Given that both the assessment and first appellate proceedings were ex-parte, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to decide the case on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and to file documentary evidence. The assessee was directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Other grounds raised were not adjudicated as they became academic. The findings for AY 2015-16 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has to condone the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for delay). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was not intentional or deliberate, as they were unaware of the Assessment Order and believed their professional would handle the appeal filing. They sought one more opportunity before the AO. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)]. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the assessee is regularly non-compliant and no further opportunity should be provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194A,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri. N. Balusamy - JCIT
Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT, National Faceless Appeal Centre vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085781304(1) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250,'2025-26/1085781995 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085782240(1) for the

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 194A

All 1,487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →