ITTANGUR CHANDRASHEKAR SHARADA,SARJAPUR, BENGALURU. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

ITA 2421/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Ittangur Chandrashekar Sharada, against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention revolves around the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order which included additions under Section 69A as unexplained money. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, which was attributed by the assessee to her not regularly operating her email account. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., emphasized the importance of substantial justice and natural justice, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471052 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEHA SAHYA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUSKA K.S
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2421, 2482 & 2483/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Ittangur Chandrashekar Sharada, No.24, Maruthi Nagar, Bagalur Road, Sarjapur, Bengaluru – 562 125. PAN – FKNPS 9638 Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(3)(3), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Anuska K.S, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Neha Sahya, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 28/08/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. ITA No. 2421/Bang/2024 for the Asst. Year 2015-16 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14/11/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment order ITA No.2421, 2482 & 2483/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 5 . passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 3. The assessment order dated 18/03/2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 61,42,000/- by making additions under Section 69A as unexplained money. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was delayed by 96 days beyond the prescribed time limit under section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee before the ld. CIT-A explained the delay by contending that she is a housewife and was not regularly operating her email account, which resulted in the delayed notice of the assessment order and subsequent appeal. Upon becoming aware of the assessment proceedings and demand notice, the assessee approached her tax consultant and prepared the necessary documents for appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, wilful, or deliberate but due to genuine and bona fide reasons beyond her control. However, the ld. CIT-A dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. authorized representative (AR) reiterated the arguments previously made before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and additionally agreed to comply with the proceedings before the ld. ITA No.2421, 2482 & 2483/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 5 . CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR requested that the issue be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on legal provisions. 7. On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative (DR) did not raise any major objections to referring the matter back to the ld. CIT-A for a fresh decision as per legal requirements. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The principle of natural justice demands that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present her case, particularly when the delay is not intentional and the assessee has presented a reasonable cause. It is a settled legal position that substantive rights should not be defeated on technical grounds, and a liberal approach should be adopted in cases of condonation of delay where a genuine cause exists. 8.1 In light of the principles of natural justice and judicial precedents, we hold that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limine is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with the law. The learned CIT(A) is directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal on merits. It is also directed to the assessee to make necessary ITA No.2421, 2482 & 2483/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 5 . compliance during the appellate proceedings and should not seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) is condoned. The matter is remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Thus, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to ITA Nos. 2482-2483/Bang/2024 for the AY 2015-16 10. Since the main issue in ITA No. 2421/Bang/2024 has been sent back to the learned CIT-A for reconsideration in accordance with the law, we are also inclined to refer the issues in the present appeals to the learned CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per legal provisions. Therefore, the assessee's grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. As a result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In conclusion, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 11th day of February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 11th February, 2025 / vms / ITA No.2421, 2482 & 2483/Bang/2024 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 "