BIDADI RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA BANK LTD,RAMANAGARA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

ITA 567/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bidadi Rythara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., the appellant, against the Income Tax Officer, Ward \\u2013 1, Ramanagara, the respondent. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant requested condonation for a delay of 261 days in filing the appeal, attributed to the absence of a regular CEO from 2014 to 2022 and the subsequent unawareness of the new CEO regarding the pending proceedings. The tribunal found the delay deserving of condonation but imposed a cost of \\u20b91000 on the appellant due to negligence. The matter was restored to the CIT-A for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a reasoned and speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669539 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GHALE; STANDING COUNSEL DEPT
• Assessee Lawyers: GOKUL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’, BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 567/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bidadi Rythara Seva Sahakara Bank Ltd., 0, Bidadi Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. – 562 109. PAN – AAAAB 2523 L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Ramanagara. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gokul, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR) Date of hearing : 17.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi vide order dated 01/05/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064560818(1) for the assessment year 2017- 18. 2. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed an application requesting for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for 261 days. It was submitted that due to the absence of a ITA No.567/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 . regular Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from 2014 to 2022, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) or file the appeal before the Tribunal in time. The new CEO, appointed in 2022, was unaware of the pending proceedings and the timelines involved. A synopsis explaining these reasons was filed before us. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the reasons given, we are of the view that although there has been negligence on the part of the assessee, the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. However, considering the negligent approach and non-appearance before the learned CIT(A) as well as the delayed filing of appeal before the ITAT, we impose a cost of ₹1,000/- on the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of the above cost in the income tax department. 3.1 On going through the record, we find that the appeal deserves to be restored for fresh adjudication before the learned CIT-A. The learned AR has assured us that the assessee shall fully cooperate with the learned Ld. CIT-A and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments during the fresh proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, and considering the principles laid down under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which require a reasoned and speaking order, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT-A. 3.2 The ld. CIT- shall consider the matter afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a detailed and speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to comply ITA No.567/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 . promptly and avoid any delay. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 25th day of June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 25th June, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "