LAKSHMANAPPA PARAMESHWARAPPA PRAKASH,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. ACIT, HASSAN

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is engaged in the business of retail sale of liquor. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 19,93,540.00 only. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the purpose of verification of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that he, along with his mother, was engaged in agricultural activities. It was explained that the assessee’s mother had been earning agricultural income over a long period of time and had accumulated cash from such activities. After the announcement of demonetisation, the mother handed over the cash to the assessee for the purpose of depositing the same in the bank account. The cash was handed over to the assessee by the mother because she did not operate any bank account and, due to her old age and lack of literacy, could not visit banks and deal with the procedures involved during the demonetisation period.

1 However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, there was no mention of agricultural income in the return of income of the assessee or any of his family members. In the absence of supporting evidence, the ITA No.2271 /Bang/2025

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, during the appellate proceedings the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the learned AR submitted that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 741 days. The learned AR explained that the delay occurred due to serious medical issues faced by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee was suffering from lumbar spondylosis with neuropathy and accelerated hypertension, due to which his physical mobility and functional capacity were severely impaired. The assessee was medically advised to take complete rest and to avoid travel, strenuous work and stressful occupational activities. In support of the above contention, the learned AR has placed on record a medical certificate along with relevant medical documents forming part of the paper book. The learned AR therefore prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the matter may be admitted for adjudication on merits.

The learned DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It was submitted that the assessee has filed

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 741 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay along with a medical certificate and supporting documents explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. The assessee has submitted that he was suffering from lumbar spondylosis with neuropathy and accelerated hypertension, due to which his physical mobility and functional capacity were severely impaired, and he was medically advised to take complete rest and avoid travel and strenuous work.

1 After considering the explanation furnished by the assessee and the medical documents placed on record, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate. The assessee has placed sufficient material demonstrating that he was suffering from serious health issues which affected his ability to pursue the appellate remedy within the prescribed time. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant should not be denied an opportunity of hearing on technical grounds when sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.

3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that refusal to condone delay in appropriate cases may result in perpetuating injustice on purely technical grounds, even when the appellate authority is otherwise competent to correct the error. Hence, if the application for condonation of delay is rejected despite the existence of reasonable cause, it would amount to allowing an injustice to continue merely on account of technicalities.

4 Considering the facts of the present case and the medical condition explained by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay of 741 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

5 Further, on perusal of the record, we also find that the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) were completed without effective participation from the assessee. In view of the circumstances explained by the assessee and the medical condition placed on record, it appears that the assessee could not properly present his case before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to examine the explanation furnished by the assessee. With these

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

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file