KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

It is submitted that the then General Manager [Accounts] Sri. S Raghavendra one Sri. S Raghavendra was incharge of the finance department and was looking after various finance related matters. Since, multiple notices were issued by the Income-tax Department for various other assessment years including notice of hearing issued by the officer of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] for the impugned assessment year 2019-20, due to oversight or due to miscommunication the hearing notices issued by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] for the impugned assessment year 2019-20 went un- noticed and the same could not be responded or complied to the hearing notices issued by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals].

It is submitted that the said appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], dated 23/03/2024, was also went un-noticed by the then General Manager [Accounts] Sri. S Raghavendra and hence the same was inadvertently not to the notice of the Petitioner / Appellant for the reasons as mentioned above.

Thereafter, the then General Manager [Accounts] Sri. S Raghavendra, tendered his resignation from the employment by opting for Voluntary Retirement from his services in the month of December, 2024.

It submitted that in place of General Manager [Accounts] Sri. S Raghavendra who took retirement from his employment, Sri. M.S. Anand was promoted as new General Manager [Accounts] on and from January,2025.

It is submitted that the said new General Manager [Accounts] Sri. M.S. Anand, was taking stock of all the pending files and also the pending issues and while scrutinizing the pending works when they received a notice of hearing from the Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] for a different assessment year, while complying to the said notice of hearing the present General Manager [Accounts] when they looked at the information window in e-proceedings of the Income-tax e-filing portal of the Petitioner / Appellant then to his shock he noticed the impugned appellate order was passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 7 of 13 [Appeals] dated 23/03/2024 appeal preferred by the Petitioner / Appellant against the impugned order of rectification passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143[3] of the Act for the impugned assessment year 2019-20 and also another appellate order was passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] dated 07/02/2024 being appeal preferred by the Petitioner / Appellant against the impugned order of intimation passed under section 143[1] of the Act for very same impugned assessment year 2019-20.

Thereafter, the present General Manager [Accounts] approached the office of the present counsel Sri. A. Shankar, Senior Advocate who is the Petitioner / Appellant tax consultant and appraised about the entire circumstances as regard to the ex-parte appellate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] as against the appeal preferred against the impugned order of rectification passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143[3] of the Act and also appeal preferred against impugned order of intimation passed under section 143[1] of the Act.

The present counsel after hearing the same from the present General Manager [Accounts] Sri. M. S. Anand, suggested the Petitioner / Appellant to file a statutory appeal against the ex-parte appellate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] by preferring a statutory appeal before this Hon'ble Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru.

It is submitted that based on the advice of the office of the present counsel and with the help of the office of the present counsel, the appeal papers were prepared by them and the appeal before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru was filed on 25/02/2025 with a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal of about 279 days.

It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 253 of the Act the Petitioner / Appellant ought to have & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 8 of 13 filed the statutory appeal against the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax [Appeals], within 60 days from the date of receipt i.e. 23/03/2024 of the said order i.e. on or before 22/05/2024, before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

Thus, for the reasons as mentioned in the above paragraphs, the Petitioner / Appellant was prevented from filing the statutory appeal within the time stipulated in the statute i.e. within 60 days i.e. on or before 22/05/2024. It is submitted that the Petitioner / Appellant was not aware of passing of the impugned appellate order by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax [Appeals].

Wherefore, in view of the above factual background, the Petitioner / Appellant could not file the Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal in time as per the scheme of the Act and there arose of delay of about 279 days in filing this present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal due to circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner / Appellant and further it also could not respond to the notice of hearing issued by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], which infact led to passing of an ex-parte appellate order by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] for the reasons mentioned in the above paragraphs, which fact may kindly be considered by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

It is further submitted that the said act of the Petitioner / Appellant in not filing the present appeal within time is not deliberate or intentional and the Petitioner / Appellant by not filing the appeal in time will not gain any benefit and for the reasons as stated above the Petitioner / Appellant could not file the present appeal within the stipulated time which fact may kindly be appreciated by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the Petitioner / Appellant would be put to great & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 9 of 13 hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or injury would be caused to the Respondent if this application of condonation of delay is allowed.

Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others [1987] 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Petitioner / Appellant relies on other decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 SCC 733; and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others, reported in [2002] 3 SCC 195 and another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited [2011] 334 ITR 269 [SC].

Wherefore the Petitioner / Appellant once again humbly pray before this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly consider the submissions made and considering the submissions the Petitioner / Appellant humbly pray before this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the present appeal of about 279 days and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.”

The Assessee in support of its claim for condonation of delay has also filed duly sworn affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Managing Director of Assessee organization.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR vehemently opposed the contention raised by the assessee for condonation of delay by specifically claiming that assessee is neither a rustic villager nor a & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 10 of 13 common man who cannot understand the intimacies of law but in- fact is an organization, who is having plenty of legal minds and therefore reason stated by the Assessee cannot considered as plausible.

The Ld. Counsel Mr. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate, in response to the aforesaid contention of the Ld. DR, has demonstrated the fact that Shri S. Raghavendra, being the General Manager (Accounts) of the Assessee was handling the tax matters of the Assessee organization, who had taken retirement from his employment and therefore in place of him, Shri M.S. Anand on being promoted has taken charge as General Manager (Accounts) from January 2025 onwards and took some time to understand the legal cases going on and/ or intricacies of the issues involved in the cases pending before the Courts including before the Tribunal. Thus the said reason also is also one of the major reasons for delay. Even otherwise, there were various proceedings involved in the instant cases, as the assessee has challenged the orders u/s 143(3) as well as 154 of the Act. Thus, lenient view may be taken and delay may be condoned.

Having considered the above stated peculiar facts and circumstances as demonstrated above by the parties and specific to the fact that General Manager (Accounts), who was handling the accounts matter of the assessee Company, took voluntary retirement and therefore new General Manager (Accounts) has taken charge of the accounts affairs of the assessee but somehow & 370/Bang/2025 M/s. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Page 11 of 13 new General Manager (Accounts) took reasonable time to understand the cases and intricacies of issues involved and thus approached the office of the present Counsel Sri. A. Shankar, Senior Advocate and appraised about the entire circumstances qua ex-parte appellate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner, as against the appeals preferred against the impugned orders of rectification passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143[3] of the Act and intimation passed under section 143[1] of the Act. The present counsel after consulting the present General Manager [Accounts] Sri. M. S. Anand, suggested to challenge such ex-parte appellate orders, by preferring a statutory appeals before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Thus, on the advice and help of the present counsel, the present appeals were filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Bengaluru on 25/02/2025 but with a delay of about 279 days.

The Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A) and file the relevant documents and submissions, which would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

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

As observed above, since, the issues raised in are identical to Mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes.