M/S. DAVANGERE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, DAVANAGERE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. The Tribunal also set aside the dismissal of the appeal on merits by the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 102 days. The delay was attributed to a communication gap between the assessee and its authorized representative. On merits, the assessee contended that self-assessment tax was paid before the assessment order was passed, and Section 249(4)(a) was wrongly applied.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
13 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 27/03/15 passed by Ld.CIT (A) Devangere for assessment year 2012 – 13.
At the outset Ld. AR submitted that, there is delay of 102 days, in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit filed by Sh M H Laxman, CEO of assessee. Referring to affidavit dated 16/09/19 filed by Chief Executive Officer of assessee, submitted that, communication gap between assessee and there authorised representative caused the said delay. He submitted that it was not wilful or deliberate on behalf of assessee to file appeal belatedly. 2.1. Ld. CIT DR though opposed the application for condoning delay could not controvert that such delay caused on behalf of assessee was not wilful. 2.2. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. In the affidavit filed by the CEO, it has been submitted that as soon as the appellate order was received by assessee it was sent to the representatives of assessee who intimated assessee to send relevant papers for preparation and filing of appeal. It has been submitted that no such papers were received by representatives of assessee, and it was only on 12/09/19 that representative called upon assessee and informed regarding relevant papers having not sent.
13 2.3. On perusal of the affidavit we are of opinion that, there was a bona fide reasons for delay in filing present appeal and that assessee has not wilfully abstained from doing so. We therefore, condoned the delay caused in filing present appeal before this Tribunal.
On merits Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT (A) dismissed assessee’s appeal, as assessing officer reported that assessee has failed to pay tax on income returned. Before us Ld. AR submitted that assessee discharged the self-assessment tax liability on 20/11/12 for year under consideration much before passing the assessment order under section 143 (3) of the act which was dated 27/02/15. He submitted that provisions of section 249 (4) (a) of the Act has been wrongly applied to the present facts of the case without any due verification by Ld. CIT (A). 3.1. Ld. CIT DR submitted that present appeal may be set aside to Ld. CIT (A) to decide on merits. 3.2. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. It is observed that assessee has paid the self-assessment tax for year under consideration on 20/11/12 which is very clear from the copy of challan filed before us today. Under such circumstances in our view Ld.CIT(A) was wrong in up dismissing the appeal in limine, without deciding the issues on merits. 3.3. We therefore, set aside this issue back to Ld. CIT (A), with a direction to pass detailed order on merits, after granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee as per law. 3 13 Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th January, 2020.
More judgments on Section 249(4)(a)
- Madhusudan Pala, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle- 9(1), HyderabadITA 1741/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2009-10
- Madhusudan Pala, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle 9(1), HyderabadITA 1739/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2007-08
- Shaheed Bhagat Singh Education Society… vs ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(3), MumbaiITA 3827/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Jan 2026AY 2023-24
- Murtuza Hasanali Netterwala, Mumbai vs Incom Tax Officer, CPC, BengaluruITA 6341/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2025AY 2024-25
- Swaminath Baburao Patil, Solapur vs ITO Ward 2(3) Solapur, SolapurITA 832/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: Disposed25 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026