KLN ENGINEERING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a delay of 51 days is not inordinate and the reasons provided by the assessee are reasonable. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 51 days, citing the director's travel and ongoing audit as reasons. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limini, deeming the delay inordinate and the cause not reasonable.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was inordinate and whether the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause for condonation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “A” BENCH, BENGALURU
O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. The assessee filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi and it relates to AY 2018-19.
The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limini without condoning the delay of 51 days filing the appeal.
I heard the parties and perused the record. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act") wherein certain additions were made. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 51 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating that the Director of the assessee was travelling and audit of accounts of the M/s. KLN Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd.
company was in progress and the said situation led to the delay of 51 days. The learned CIT(A) took the view that the delay of 51 days was inordinate in nature and further took the view that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly he refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
I noticed that the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A) was 51 days and in my view, it cannot be considered as inordinate delay. I notice that the assessee has given explanations stating that the Director of the company, who looks after the accounts, was travelling and was attending to audit also and hence the due date for filing was missed out. In my view, considering the period of delay, the explanation given by the assessee is reasonable. It is a well settled position of law that the cause for delay has to be examined from the point of view of a man having reasonable point of view. Further, the technicalities can be deserted for the cause of justice. Accordingly, viewed from these angles, I am of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly I condone the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the ground on merits, I restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd June, 2022.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026
- Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Ms R Ess Iron And Steel PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026