SRI. VAISHNAVI WINES ,KOPPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KOPPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's remote location and lack of knowledge of tax proceedings. The Tribunal also directed the NFAC to admit the appeal concerning the addition made under section 68 of the Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC concerning assessment year 2020-21. There was a delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC and a further delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC should admit the appeal despite delays, and whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Act was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 13.3.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
The assessee raised various grounds with regard to addition made u/s 68 of the Act without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) challenging the addition of Rs.20 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act. However, there was a delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. Further, there is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
Sri Vaishnavi Wines, Koppal Page 2 of 3 3.1 With regard to delay before the Tribunal, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is not well versed in Income Tax proceedings and hailed from remote village Karatagi, Gangavathi Taluq, Koppal District and took time to trace a suitable counsel to argue the case to file appeal before this Tribunal. It took extra 38 days’ time to search a counsel to file appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, he prayed to condone the short delay of 38 days.
After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the reason explained by the assessee is good and sufficient and we find that there is a reasonable cause for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
4.1 Further, there was a delay of 89 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal before NFAC, the same has not been admitted by the NFAC. Now the ld. A.R. submitted that there was a technical glitch in ITBA portal. As such, it took time to file appeal before the NFAC and prayed that appeal may be admitted in the interest of justice and the issue may be decided on merit.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, the assessee is in a remote village Karatagi, Gangavathi Taluq, Koppal District and he is not well educated and having no knowledge of the income tax proceedings. Hence, in the interest of justice, we direct the NFAC to admit the appeal and decide the issues in dispute with regard to addition made u/s 68 of the Act on merit. Accordingly, the impugned issue after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before NFAC as Sri Vaishnavi Wines, Koppal Page 3 of 3 well as before this Tribunal, we remit to the file of NFAC to decide it on merit.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2024
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
