SIR M V ENGINEERS HOUSING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1412/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 449-day delay in filing the appeal, subject to the payment of ₹5,000 to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 449 days, attributing it to the illness of the housing society president's mother, which required him to attend to family matters. The assessee provided medical records to support this explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is a fit case for condonation, and whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities warrant a fresh adjudication.

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 D Suresh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Hearing: 02.09.2025Pronounced: 08.09.2025

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 24/01/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060075099(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

There is a delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before us. An affidavit was filed by the assessee explaining the delay. It was stated that the mother of the President of the housing society was unwell. Because of this, the President had to move to his native place. The assessee also filed medical records in support of this explanation. Due to the illness of his mother, the President of the society could not pay attention to the income-tax matters. Therefore, the delay occurred.

2.1 According to the learned AR, the delay was beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, the delay should be condoned.

3.

On the other hand, the learned DR opposed condoning the delay. He argued that the delay was significant. Therefore, it should not be condoned unless some cost is imposed on the assessee for his negligent approach.

4.

The learned AR agreed to pay a cost of ₹5,000 on account of the delay in filing the appeal.

5.

We have heard both sides and perused the records. Considering the facts, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. This is subject to the payment of ₹5,000 to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

5.1 On the merits of the case, we note that both the orders, i.e., of the AO and the ld. CIT(A), were passed ex parte. Therefore, we set . aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, as per law. The AO shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee is directed to extend cooperation and avoid unwarranted adjournments. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →