SRI TIPPESWAMY TRADING COMPANY ,BYADGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1149/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 October 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 688-day delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient and reasonable cause. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal could not be filed in time due to the illness and subsequent demise of their consultant, resulting in an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee only became aware of the order when their bank account was attached.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable due to the death of the assessee's consultant and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside.

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 NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 13.08.2025Pronounced: 09.10.2025

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 15/05/2023 in DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052837060(1) for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

We have heard the learned AR and the learned DR. We have also perused the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal and the materials placed on record.

2.1 The assessee explained that the appeal could not be filed in time because the consultant, Shri Virupanna Amberkar, Chartered Accountant, was unwell for a long period and later passed away on 21- 08-2024. Due to this reason, the assessee did not receive proper communication regarding the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee came to know about the ex-parte order only when the bank account was attached on 04-03-2025. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken to obtain the papers from the erstwhile Tax Advocate and file the appeal.

2.2 The delay of 688 days, in our view, was occurred due to sufficient and reasonable cause. The illness and subsequent demise of the consultant were circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The delay is therefore condoned.

2.3 On merits, the order of the learned CIT(A) has been passed ex- parte without proper participation of the assessee. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present his case. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →