Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 353 days due to the marriage of her daughter. The assessee claims an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- deposited in cash during demonetization was agricultural income, but the CIT(A) allegedly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper appreciation of evidence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 353 days considering the assessee's background and the reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not judiciously considered the evidence and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable? Whether the CIT(A) properly appreciated the evidence provided by the assessee?
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi, Income Tax Officer, No.2, 10th Cross, Ashok Nagar, Ward-5(1)(1), BSK 1st Stage, Bengaluru, Bengaluru. Vs. Karnataka. PAN NO : AGBPL3644A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 24/04/2024 and relates to Asst. Year 2017-18 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064317639(1).
There is a delay of 353 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee drawn the attention of the Bench towards the application for condonation of delay supported with duly sworn affidavit. In a nutshell, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that since the Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi assessee was busy in the marriage of her daughter could not be able to contact with the professional who was handling the taxation matters and that is why there is a delay of 353 days in filing this appeal. It has further been submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee hails from the rural background with a limited High School education. Averting to the merits of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that it is a case where an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- as been deposited in cash during the demonetization period. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the source of this cash was agricultural income earned by the assessee. Further, it has been pointed out that the evidence in support of the agricultural claim has not been properly appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A), as the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without appreciating the replies of the assessee in a judicious manner.
The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue vehemently argued that the explanation submitted by the assessee vis-à-vis condonation of delay is not a plausible explanation and hence, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed as barred by limitation.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observed that it is a case of ordinate delay (as per the law propounded by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders reported 312 ITR 193). The Ld. Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi DR could not refute the submission of the Ld. AR that the assessee hails from a rural background with limited High School education. It is a settled position of law that it is not the length of the delay rather the reasonable cause behind the delay is to be considered. Here we are dealing with a case of an Individual assessee.
We would like to refer to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Prashanth Projects Ltd vs DCIT, dated 04/09/2013 wherein the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in para 3.1 of their order has made a distinction between the case of the corporate entity and the case of the individual. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case i.e., ordinate delay of 353 days and the background of the assessee, we hereby condone the delay of 353 days and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
So far as the merits of the case are concerned, on a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has just reproduced the order of the Ld. Ld. AO, while discussing the merits of the case, which in our view is not a judicious manner to decide the appeal. We are of the firm opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has not at all appreciated the evidence furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and hence, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Jinnagara Eraiah Lakshmidevi 7. As per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order with respect to the grounds raised before him. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we restore this matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for examining the appeal in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) shall grant a meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.