BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the rival contentions regarding the delay and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders. The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s orders were bad in law due to violation of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 898 days. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals in limine without condoning the delay, leading to the present appeals before the ITAT.
What were the issues?
The primary issue is whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals without condoning the substantial delay and whether the ex-parte orders violated principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Per Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate ex-parte orders of CIT(A)-13, Bengaluru, dated 03.10.2018; for Assessment Year 2012-13 dismissing the assessee’s appeals in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and thereby confirming the orders of ITO (TDS) Ward – 1(1), Bangalore, dated 17.03.2015 passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Order on petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeals for Assessment Year 2012-13 before CIT(A)
2.1 Admittedly, there was a delay of 898 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Along with the appeals proforma, the assessee had filed petitions / Affidavits praying for condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A).
2.2 We have considered the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record in respect of the assessee’s contentions, submissions and reasons for the delay in filing the two appeals for Assessment Year 2012-13 before the CIT(A) and contentions to the effect that the impugned orders of the CIT(A) are bad in law as they have been passed ex-parte; in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed as they are passed without providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard on merits.
2.3 The assessee, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) is a local authority overseeing the development and provision of civic amenities of the city of Bengaluru. In its affidavit, the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was for the following reasons:-
More judgments on Section 201
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Santosh Kumar Bhogi, Visakhapatnam vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 253/VIZ/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Himanshusinhji Jyotendrasinhji Jadeja… vs DCIT/ACIT Circle-1(1), RKT, RajkotITA 325/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026