BOSCH GLOBAL SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2591/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 June 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Vice President), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order while rejecting the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the condonation of delay petition and then decide the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was arising from the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The appeal was disposed of without condoning the delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the Covid-19 period and should have been condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) ought to have passed a speaking order for condonation of delay before deciding the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

Hearing: 18.06.2025Pronounced: 19.06.2025

PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 5.11.2024 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070110653(1) and relates to assessment year 2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2.

At the outset, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the reasons for the delay were duly mentioned in column no.15 of form 36, as per which the delay was Bosch Global Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 2 pertaining to Covid-19 period and hence the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and then could have decided the matter.

4.

Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of authorities below.

5.

After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration at the end of ld. CIT(A). As the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order while rejecting the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order with respect to the petition for condonation of delay and then decide the matter in accordance with law.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →