BANGALORE MALLAIAH MALLIKARJUNAIAH,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation provided in the condonation application and affidavit to be plausible and sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance despite opportunities. Since both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent their case before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to remit the entire issue in dispute back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournments. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for negligence shown towards statutory notices before the first appellate stage, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Bangalore Mallaiah Mallikarjunaiah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC (CIT(A)) dated December 13, 2024, for Assessment Year 2021-22. There was a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained the delay by stating that the CIT(A) order went unnoticed due to reliance on professional advice and concurrent proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee submitted an affidavit and an application for condonation of delay, citing several judicial precedents. The revenue was represented by the DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Bengaluru.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee, and if so, whether the appeal should be admitted for adjudication on merits. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was not deliberate but due to professional dependency and the order being missed amidst concurrent proceedings. They relied on multiple judgments, including CIT and Anr. v. Golf View Homes Ltd., Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others, and decisions of the Bengaluru ITAT, to support the claim of sufficient cause for condonation. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the case at this stage.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
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 13.12.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071209781(1) for the assessment year 2021-22 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Abdul Jaleel, Bangalore Page 3 of 9 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an affidavit dated 4.7.2025 along with an application or condonation of delay in filing the appeal which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:
Abdul Jaleel, Bangalore Page 8 of 9 4. Having heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. D.R., it is perceived that the explanation in the condonation application as well as in affidavit is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified period and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit.
4.1 On going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we take a note of the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal on the ground that in spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not submit any documents/record nor any submissions. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal and further held that the AO has made the addition on merits considering the facts of the case and no infirmity is noticed in the order of AO and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
4.2 Before us both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings with ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and should not take unnecessary adjournments. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
4.3 Further, while remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.5,000/- to the assessee owing to the negligence shown towards the statutory notices before the first appellate stage. The assessee Abdul Jaleel, Bangalore Page 9 of 9 shall deposit the total cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. With these terms, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo consideration with the above observations.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
