BANGALORE LAKSHMIKANTH VENKATESH MURTHY,RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1328/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay, and since the DR had no objection to condoning the delay, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 14 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay due to insufficient cause. The assessee approached the ITAT against this order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning a short delay in filing the appeal before him, and whether the ITAT can direct the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Hearing: 19.08.2025Pronounced: 20.08.2025

Mr. Bangalore Lakshmikanth Income Tax Officer, Venkatesh Murthy, Ward-2(2)(2), 2517, 10 Main E-Block, Bangalore. Vs. 2nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560010, Karnataka. PAN NO : ADEPV7568F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 O R D E R

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by Mr. Bangalore Lakshmikanth Venkatesh Murthy against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) (NFAC) passed U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Asst Year 2017-18, dated 23/05/2025 emanating from Assessment Order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act for the Asst Year 2017-18 dated 26/11/2019.

Bangalore Lakshmikanth Venkatesh Murthy 2. Submissions of the Ld. AR: Sri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, the Ld. AR for the assessee, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal which was only 14 days. The Ld. AR pleaded that the delay may kindly be condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to decide the appeal on merits. Submissions of the Ld. DR: 3. The Ld. DR submitted that he has no objection if the delay is condoned and matter is set-aside to Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 14 days. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay stating that there was no ‘sufficient cause’. In this case, there is a delay of only 14 days. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. The Ld. DR has not objected to the condonation of delay. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the assessee’s appeal on merits and in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee following the principles of natural justice.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →