BIDADI RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA BANK LTD,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 567/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 June 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 delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of ₹1,000/-, due to the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the learned CIT-A for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order from the Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi, for assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 261 days, attributed to the absence of a regular CEO and unawareness of pending proceedings by the new CEO.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication to the CIT(A) given the circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

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 Gokul, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Hearing: 17.06.2025Pronounced: 25.06.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi vide order dated 01/05/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064560818(1) for the assessment year 2017- 18.

2.

At the outset, we note that the assessee filed an application requesting for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for 261 days. It was submitted that due to the absence of a regular Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from 2014 to 2022, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) or file the appeal before the Tribunal in time. The new CEO, appointed in 2022, was unaware of the pending proceedings and the timelines involved. A synopsis explaining these reasons was filed before us.

3.

After considering the submissions of the assessee and the reasons given, we are of the view that although there has been negligence on the part of the assessee, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. However, considering the negligent approach and non-appearance before the learned CIT(A) as well as the delayed filing of appeal before the ITAT, we impose a cost of ₹1,000/- on the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of the above cost in the income tax department.

3.1 On going through the record, we find that the appeal deserves to be restored for fresh adjudication before the learned CIT-A. The learned AR has assured us that the assessee shall fully cooperate with the learned Ld. CIT-A and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments during the fresh proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and considering the principles laid down under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which require a reasoned and speaking order, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT-A.

3.2 The ld. CIT- shall consider the matter afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a detailed and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to comply . promptly and avoid any delay. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 25th day of June, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →