GEETHA MAHADEV GOWDA,BENGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), BANGALORE

ITA 547/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had dismissed her appeal due to a delay in filing and lack of requisite details to contest the appeal. The Tribunal noted the delay was due to the assessee's severe health problems, supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal found merit in condoning the delay, referencing several judicial precedents that prioritize substantial justice over technical procedural requirements. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775073 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471), People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO (100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen)), CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVANAND H KALAKERI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 547/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda No.28/1, 6th Main, 9th Cross Malleswaram Bangalore 560 003 PAN NO :ABTPG3452C Vs. ITO Ward-2(1)(3) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : NONE Respondent by : Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 9.12.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071000904(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised 34 grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 133 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC mentioning the reasons for the delay which are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 2 of 8 4. The main reason cited by the assessee is the severe health problem. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the opinion that without evidence viz., certificate from a registered medical practitioner or from a recognized hospital etc such a general explanation can never be accepted. Further, in spite of several notices, there was neither any clarification nor any response from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC following the various judicial pronouncements & considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, did not condone the delay. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 3 of 8 dismissed the appeal on merits as the assessee did not submit the requisite details to contest the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 09/12/2024, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Even before us also, there is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal mentioning again the medical issues which are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 4 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 5 of 8 7. Ld. D.R. on the other hand strongly opposed in condoning the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal by submitting that assessee is very callous in its approach in filing the appeal not only before this Tribunal but also before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay along with a medical certificate in proof of her ill health and we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time. 8.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: (1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 6 of 8 (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 8.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. 8.3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 7 of 8 8.4 The next question may arise whether delay was excessive or inordinate. There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, just 17 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Furthermore, the Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (Chennai) (TM) condoned more than six hundred days delay. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 17 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 9. Further, it is an undisputed fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal as there was no evidence produced viz., certificate from a registered medical practitioner or from a recognized hospital. Further, in spite of several notices, there was neither any clarification nor any response from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC following the various judicial pronouncements & considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, did not condone the delay. We are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before us, the assessee has also produced the medical certificate from the registered doctor. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.547/Bang/2025 Smt. Geetha Mahadev Gowda, Bangalore Page 8 of 8 belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & direct the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to admit the appeal for adjudication. 9.1 Moreover, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also dismissed the appeal on merits as the assessee did not submit the requisite details to contest the appeal. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, the entire issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/records/ financials/information/evidences in support of her claims or as may be called for by the AO for proper adjudication of the case. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th Sept, 2025 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 4th Sept, 2025. VG/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 "