SEKARIPURAM DEVARAJ GOPALAKRISHNAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1816/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 October 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee pursuing a remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism, which constitutes a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing judicial pronouncements on condoning delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 188 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, explaining that it was due to a technical glitch in the Income Tax Portal and the pursuit of remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was liable to be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. C. J. Yeswanthram, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Hearing: 07.10.2024Pronounced: 08.10.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

SP No.58/Bang/2024
ITA No1816/Bang/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bangalore – 560 032. Ward -6(3)(3), PAN : AARPG 2781 P Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. C. J. Yeswanthram, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 07.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice President :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 22.07.2024 passed under section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21.

2.

At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before him. The delay condonation application filed before the CIT(A) reads as follows:

3.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

4.

We find that the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is only as a result of the fact that the assessee was pursuing / seeking remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism on the bonafide belief that grievance redressal was the correct course of action. On the facts of the instant case, there is “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). In condoning the delay, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements :  QT Vs. K.S.P. Shanmughavel Nadar reported in (1985) 153 ITR 596  Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471

5.

Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the issue on merits needs to be examined by CIT(A). For the aforesaid purpose, the matter is restored to the files of the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.

SP No.58/Bang/2024

6.

Since we have disposed off the Income Tax Appeal, the above stay petition is dismissed as infructuous.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and SP is dismissed as infructuous.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →