SRI SAI SOUHARDHA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI SAI SOUHARDHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., OPP. MIDDLE SCHOOL (BDO OFFICE), DODDAPET, KOLAR-563 101. REP BY CED.L MANJUNATH …APPELLANT (BY SRI.R CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, NEW EXTENSION, KOLAR - 563 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI.,ADVOCATE AND SRI.NIRMAL MATHEW., ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPELANT’S APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF INCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 24.02.2026 IN ITA NO.2342/BANG/2025 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

Digitally signed by G SHREERAKSHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The appellant - assessee is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') questioning the order dated 24.02.2026 in ITA No.2342/Bang/2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') raising the following substantial questions of law: "16. (i) Whether in facts & Circumstances of the in upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority, who had dismissed the appeal in limine?

(ii) Whether in facts & circumstances of the in holding that the appellant failed to offer any sufficient cause explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority?

(iii) Whether in facts & circumstances of the in not considering the letter of the Chartered Accountant, who explained the reasons for not filing the appeal, when it was entrusted to him, though a

copy of the said letter was filed before the Appellate Authorities?"

appellant has not made out sufficient cause condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as assessment order, the appellant - assessee is before this Court in this appeal, raising the above substantial questions of law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appeal was filed by the authorized representative of the appellant and the relevant papers for filing the appeal was handed over to the authorized representative of the appellant in time. However, it is submitted that the authorized representative of the appellant could not file the appeal in time for the reason that the wife of the authorized representative of the appellant was suffering from Cancer since the year 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant - assessee would invite our attention to the letter of authorized representative (Annexure - C), wherein he has stated that

due to his personal problems he could not attend the office work properly and, as his wife was suffering from cancer, he was running around to get treatment to his wife. Learned counsel for the appellant also files affidavit dated 01.08.2026 of the said authorized representative Sri.K L Ravindranath, Chartered Accountant before this Court today. Wherein the Chartered Accountant has sworn that his wife late Mrs.R.Vijayalakshmi was diagnosed with cancer in the year 2021 and she underwent prolonged treatment in various hospitals in Chitradurga, Davanagere and Bengaluru. Further, the said affidavit is enclosed with death certificate of his wife, which indicates that she died on 26.06.2024. The affidavit is also enclosed with the medical documents of treatment of the wife of the legal representative of the appellant herein. The medical records would indicate that the wife of the authorized representative of the appellant was being treated for cancer since year 2021 till 2024. However, these documents were not filed before the Commissioner

(Appeals) or before the Tribunal. The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) had no advantage of going through the documents filed before this Court. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal have come to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out sufficient cause to condone the delay. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that delay shall not defeat the justice and only on the question of delay, a merited case should not be thrown out. Further, it is also made clear that the Courts or Tribunal should be liberal in considering the application for condonation of delay and, if cause is shown, which is not mala fide or deliberate, the delay shall be condoned and matter shall be examined on merit. In the instant case, the categorical case of the appellant is that, the papers were handed over to their representative Sri.K L Ravindranath, Chartered Accountant, filing appeal said representative could not file appeal within time as his wife was suffering from cancer. To establish that

representative of appellant - Chartered Accountant Sri.K L Ravindranath's wife was suffering from cancer, the affidavit and medical records are placed on record. On going through affidavit of appellant's representative Chartered Accountant Sri.K L Ravindranath as well as the medical records of his wife, who died by cancer, we are satisfied that the reason or the cause shown by the appellant would constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. Section 249(3) of the Act empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an appeal after the expiration of period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the time prescribed. In the instant case, though the appellant had not placed on record sufficient material to establish sufficient cause before the Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals), however, before this Court, the appellant has made available material which constitutes sufficient cause. In that view of the matter, the appeal needs to be allowed by condoning the delay in filing

the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The substantial question of law raised by the appellant are kept open. In the light of the above, the following order: ORDER i) The order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure - D) in Appeal No.NFAC/2019-20/10428186 order dated 24.02.2026 in ITA No.2342/Bang/2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 passed by the Tribunal are set aside. ii) The delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against Assessment Order dated 12.09.2022 is condoned and the matter is remitted back to Commissioner (Appeals) consideration of appeal on its merit.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

GSR,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23