SASALU NAGARAJU SATHEESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

The appellant denies himself to be assessed to a total income of Rs.19,11,500/-as against the returned income of Rs.2,91,500/- for the impugned assessment year 2017-18, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) has failed to issue notice to the mail id mentioned in the form 35, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on delay and has failed to appreciate that there existed sufficient cause for filing the appeal with delay, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. 7. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention on an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 19/06/2025 stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Sasalu Nagaraju Satheesh

On going through the above application for condonation, we find that the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 132 days for the reason that the assessee, being an agriculturist, was unaware of the password of the email created by his tax practitioner. The assessee does not access the email or any electronic information & Sasalu Nagaraju Satheesh

On the contrary the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time.

1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: Sasalu Nagaraju Satheesh

2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to Sasalu Nagaraju Satheesh

3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”.

4 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 07/03/2014, declaring a total income of Rs.2,91,500/-. As per the information available on record, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.16,20,000/- in State Bank of Mysore, which in the opinion of AO, prima facie indicates that the assessee had taxable income. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after recording the reason. As the assessee neither responded to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act nor u/s 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice dated 06/12/2019, the AO had no option but to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the entire cash deposits of Rs.16,20,000/- was added as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the inordinate delay of 493 days for which in the opinion of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC no cogent reason had been given. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine in view of provision of section 249(3) of the Act. 10. Again, being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 11. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that assessee is an agriculturist and he does not have access to the e-mail ID as he is not a tech savvy person. The ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that there existed sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that Sasalu Nagaraju Satheesh

1 Perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is perceived that the explanation offered 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 in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

2 Now it is an undisputed fact that assessee could not represent his case before the AO and accordingly the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act and the entire cash deposit of Sasalu Nagaraju Satheesh

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file