VAKKALA RAVI KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1874/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 December 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the assessee's repeated failure to appear but, considering the assessee's educational background, granted one more opportunity to represent the case before the CIT(A) by imposing a cost of ₹1,000.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC with a delay of 135 days and had also failed to appear before the CIT(A). The assessee cited being uneducated and not well-versed with tax proceedings as reasons for the delay and non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and grant another opportunity for adjudication despite the assessee's negligence and previous non-appearances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 10.11.2025Pronounced: 08.12.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 14/02/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2024-25/1073308251(1) for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay of 135 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before us. It was also noticed that there was non-appearance by the assessee before the learned CIT(A).

2.1 It was submitted by the learned AR that the assessee is an uneducated person and is not well-versed with income-tax proceedings. He does not check his emails on a regular basis. Therefore, the assessee could not keep track of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) intimating the date of hearing.

3.

The assessee came to know about the order passed by the learned CIT(A) only after receiving a penalty notice from the Income Tax Department. Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed the present appeal. However, in this process, a delay of 135 days occurred. To support this, the learned AR filed an affidavit of the assessee, which is available on record.

4.

In view of the above facts, the learned AR prayed that the issue may be set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law. The learned AR also assured that the assessee would make the necessary compliance.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that this is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal, which shows that the assessee is not pursuing the matter seriously. Therefore, the assessee should not be granted any further opportunity for hearing before the learned CIT(A). According to the learned DR, the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed in limine.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials on record. It is true that this is the second round of litigation before us. On the earlier occasion, the ITAT had set aside the . issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Despite that, in this second round, the assessee again failed to appear before the learned CIT(A), which shows a negligent approach on his part.

6.1 Nevertheless, considering the educational background of the assessee, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to represent his case before the learned CIT(A). However, this will be subject to the payment of a cost of ₹1,000 on account of his negligent conduct which will be deposited in the PRIME MINISTER RELIEF FUND.

6.2 Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, and considering the assurance given by the learned AR for necessary compliance, we set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 8th day of December, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →