BALAKUMARAN BALACHANDRAN ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1418/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Balakumaran Balachandran against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which dismissed his appeal due to a delay in filing. The original dispute arose from an assessment order that disallowed the TDS credit claimed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee, being a Non-Resident Indian, faced procedural delays which were not adequately explained to the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of his appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay, primarily due to his status as an NRI and his efforts to rectify the initial assessment order. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice outweighs procedural delays and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716394 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; GANESH R GHALE; STANDING
• Assessee Lawyers: V. BALAJI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1418/Bang/2025 Assessment Year:2018-19 Balakumaran Balachandran, Villa No. 101, Phoenix Paradise, Sunny Greenwoods Layout, Rayasandra Main Road, Bangalore-560099. PAN NO : AUWPK4427H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri V. Balaji, CA Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by Balakumaran Balachandran against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) passed U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Asst Year 2018-19 on 15/04/2025 emanating from Assessment Order dated 05/11/2019 passed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. 2. Findings and Analysis: In this case, the order U/s. 143(1) of the Act was passed for the Asst. Year 2018-19 disallowing the TDS credit claimed by the assessee. Assessee filed a rectification application before the Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 3 ITA No.1418/Bang/2025 Balakumaran Balachandran vs. ITO Centralized Processing Unit (CPC). The CPC rejected the assessee’s claim U/s. 154 of the Act vide order dated 13/07/2020. Then the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 03/08/2020 against the order U/s. 143(1) passed by the CPC, Bangalore. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that there was a delay of 244 days and the assessee had not given sufficient reason to explain the delay. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 3. It is noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining all the facts. During that period the assessee was a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The order U/s. 143(1) of the Act for the Asst. Year 2018-19 was passed on 05/11/2019. Then, the assessee filed a petition for rectification U/s. 154 of the Act before the CPC. The CPC vide order dated 13/07/2020 rejected the rectification request of the assessee seeking TDS credit. Then, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). All these facts are mentioned in the condonation petition. If we calculate the period from the date of order U/s. 154 of the Act which is 13/07/2020 and the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) is 03/08/2020 then, it can be observed that the assessee has immediately filed the appeal. In these circumstances of the case, it is noted that the assessee was pursuing alternate remedy in the form of rectification. Therefore, there was a valid reason for delay in filing the appeal Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 3 ITA No.1418/Bang/2025 Balakumaran Balachandran vs. ITO before the Ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, Income Tax Department is not going lose anything by verifying the assessee’s claim of TDS and deciding it based on the law. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delays. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2025 Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) JudicialMember Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated: 21st August, 2025. OKK/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "