BASAVARAJA MARABASAPPA SHIRAHATTI,PILLI COMPLEX NEAR NEW BUS STAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 01, GADAG, GADAG
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDA N D S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 (in ITA No. 1617/Bang/2025)
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23/08/2024 impugned herein passed by the National
Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the assessment year
2017-18. Page 2 of 7
S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 &
2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 261 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing an condonation application along with duly sworn affidavit, has claimed as under:
Page 3 of 7
S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 &
Page 4 of 7
S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 &
Page 5 of 7
S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 &
3. The Assessee in order to substantiate the delay in filing the instant appeal, has claimed that the delay has been occurred because of health related complications, as it clearly appears from medical documents like Haematology and Liver Function Test
Reports dated 15/10/2024, 14/11/2024 and 14/12/2024 and the doctor’s prescriptions. On the contrary though, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee, however not the medical documents relied on by the Assessee.
Considering the reason stated by the Assessee for the delay under consideration which is duly supported with medical documents and duly sworn affidavit, as bonafide, reasonable, unintentional and plausible cause, we in the interest of substantial justice, deem it appropriate to condone the delay, thus the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30-09-2019 has made the addition of Rs. 27,06,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act, against which the Assessee though filed 1st appeal before the Ld. Commissioner however despite of affording various opportunities by the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee availed none and/or made no compliance. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee on being asked about non-compliances has submitted that email ID of erstwhile tax consultant was given, who could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner, which resulted into passing the impugned order as ex-parte. The default of the erstwhile consultant cannot be fastened on the Assessee, as the Assessee is a poor rustic villager and agriculturist and having small level business in the remote area of Karnataka and also having family problems and after demise of his father on 18/02/2016, whole responsibility has been fastened on Page 6 of 7 S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 & the shoulders of the Assessee. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, one more opportunity, may be being last and final, given to the Assessee to demonstrate its case in proper manner.
On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of assessee by submitting that conduct of the assessee does not seems to be reasonable and plausible and therefore the Assessee deserves no leniency.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions of the parties, we observe that the Assessee has made bald allegations against Erstwhile Consultant without any documentary evidence and therefore the contention of the assessee to the effect that erstwhile Counsel was at fault, is neither appreciable nor acceptable. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, as the Assessee’s condition is not upto the mark, as demonstrated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and even otherwise issue involved remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, which the assessee had admittedly failed to file and therefore for just and proper decision of the case, equitable relief, fair play and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however subject to deposit of token cost of Rs. 1100/- in the Revenue Department under “Other Heads” within 15 days from the date of the order, so that the Assessee will refine himself and / or in future would become more vigilant and conscious in prosecuting its appropriate legal proceedings. Suffice to say, the Ld. Commissioner shall provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Page 7 of 7
S.A. No. 60/Bang/2025 &
8. We also direct the assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions and documents, which would be essentially required for proper adjudication. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Coming to the stay application, as we have set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by allowing appeal of the Assessee for statistical purposes, thus, the stay application has become infructuous and therefore the stay application stands dismissed being infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th August, 2025. (WASEEM AHMED)
Judicial Member
/MS /
Copy to:
1. Appellant
Respondent 3. CIT
DR, ITAT, Bangalore
Guard file
CIT(A)
By order