HOSAHALLI CHIKKANNA RAJANNA,BENGALURU V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

ITA 1396/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Hosahalli Chikkanna Rajanna against the order of the CIT(A), which had dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The primary contention was the significant delay in filing the appeal, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee argued that the delay was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the negligence of his tax consultant, coupled with his lack of education and tech-savviness as a senior citizen. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's decision on the extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic and decided to condone the delay, imposing a nominal cost on the assessee for his negligence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790314 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 134 Taxmann.com 307 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKATARAJA ACHARYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1396/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hosahalli Chikkanna Rajanna, No.19, 1st Main, Meenakshinagar, Basavshwarnagar, Bengaluru. PAN – ADFPR 3829 N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Venkataraja Acharya, CA Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT Date of hearing : 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 24/04/2025 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2025-26/1075783254(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it was noticed that there was a delay of 531 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that there was no plausible reason for delayed filing of the appeal furnished by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1396/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 . assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as it was barred by time by the ld. CIT-A. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR before us submitted that a major part of the delay is attributable to the COVID period and as such, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is only of 120 days. According to the ld. AR, the delay attributable to the COVID period should have been condoned in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022] 134 Taxmann.com 307 (SC). 4.1 The ld. AR for the remaining period of 120 days delays submitted that the assessee is uneducated and was not aware of Income Tax proceedings. Therefore, the assessee was totally dependent upon the Tax Consultant, who did not intimate about the tax proceedings. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to the negligence of the Tax Consultant and, therefore,, the assessee for the same should not be penalized. 5. In addition to the above, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Senior Citizen and is not Tech-savvy. Therefore, a sympathetic view should be taken by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, it was prayed to set aside the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit of the case as per the provisions of law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1396/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 5 . 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee should have been watchful in pursuing the matter and should not be dependent upon the Tax Consultant. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. Admittedly major part of the delay is attributable to the COVID period, which should have been condoned by the ld. CIT(A) in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ruling in the case cited above, wherein it was held as under: 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions : I. The order dated 23-3-2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 8-3-2021, 27-4-2021 and 23-9-2021, it is directed that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 3-10-2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 1-3-2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1396/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 5 . 8. For the remaining period of 120 days, we are of the view that the assessee cannot shift his obligation to the Tax Consultant. As such, we are of the view that the dispute is pertaining to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee was under the obligation to be vigilant to keep a track on the proceedings. Hence, we are not convinced with the argument of the ld. AR concerning to the negligence of the Tax Consultant. However, considering the age of the assessee and non educational background, we are inclined to take a liberal view for the assessee. Nevertheless, a nominal cost of Rs.1000/- is imposed on the assessee for his negligent approach/behavior, which has to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in fling the appeal by the assessee and decide the issue on merit. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 28th day of November, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 28th November, 2025 / vms / Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1396/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 5 . 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 Printed from counselvise.com "