SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH VENKATESHA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to financial hardship and the assessee had subsequently paid the admitted tax and interest. Therefore, the delay was condoned in the interest of justice.
What were the facts?
A survey was conducted on the assessee engaged in real estate business, followed by a notice u/s. 148 and completion of assessment with additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but it was dismissed due to a delay of 203 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to a delay of 203 days without appreciating the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE “A” BENCH, BANGALORE
Lakshminarasimaiah Venkatesha DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) 35 Ward, Sagar Road Central Revenue Building Gadikoppa, Shivamogga vs. Queen's Road Karnataka 577201 Bangalore 560001 PAN – AKUPV9253G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue by: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of hearing: 27.06.2024 Date of pronouncement: 01.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee challenges order of the CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 30.03.2024 in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2014-05.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the asessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate. For the year under consideration a survey action u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted by the department on 18.02.2019 at the business premises of the assesee. Thereafter notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.03.2021. In response to the notice the assessee filed its return of income on 19.10.2021. Afterwards the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee making various additions.
Lakshminarsimaiah Venkatesha 3. Aggrieved with the order of assessment the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) after the lapse of about 203 days. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limnee without appreciating the bonafide reasons responsible for the filing of appeal belatedly.
Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal. The assessee has raised 16 grounds of appeal. However, the solitary issue involved in this appeal is regarding the action of the CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay of 203 days. The ld. Counsel of the assessee contended that there was financial hardship due to which assessee had not deposited the admitted tax on time( application for condation of delay Pg No-164 of PB). Counsel of the assessee further drew the attention of Bench towards Page Number 55 of the Paper Book and pointed out that the assessee has later on paid the tax along with interest.
The learned D.R. relied upon the order of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions we observe that the assessment order in this case was passed on 29.03.2022 and the appeal was filed the appeal on 17.11.2022 instead of 28.04.2023, leading to a delay of 203 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. We observe that late payment of tax has been on account of financial hardship which reasons in our opinion is a bona-fide reason, further the assessee has duly paid the tax and interest on 31.10.2022 and then filed the appeal on 17.11.2022,. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay of 203 days and directs the CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee qua merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st July, 2024.
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
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
