RAMANAGARAM NAGALINGASWAMY VASUDEV,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1941/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 January 2026AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the delay was not inordinate and not intentional. The Tribunal held that disputes should be decided on merits and the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the additions. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay under section 249(3) of the Act and dismissed the appeal. The assessee appealed this order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned? Whether the appeal should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, was filed with delay beyond the time prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay under section 249(3) and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits, vide order dated 16.06.2025.

2.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to genuine and unavoidable reasons and was not intentional. It was submitted that the assessee should not be deprived of an opportunity to contest the assessment on merits for a procedural lapse. The Ld. AR further undertook that the assessee shall fully comply with all notices and directions of the Ld. CIT(A) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments if the matter is restored.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee failed to file the appeal within the statutory time limit and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the delay involved in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is not inordinate. There is nothing on record to show that the delay was deliberate or with any mala-fide intention.

5.1 It is a settled legal position that disputes should be decided on merits rather than on technical grounds. The first appellate authority is required to provide an effective opportunity to the assessee to contest the additions made by the AO. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.06.2025, and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.2 The assessee, through the Ld. AR, has undertaken to extend full cooperation and ensure timely compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to adhere to the said undertaking. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in court on 21st day of January, 2026

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →