K N GOPALA HEGGADE HUF,CHIKKMAGALUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

ITA 699/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21. The appellant faced a delay in filing the appeal due to being a senior citizen, unfamiliar with electronic communications, and residing in a remote area. The ITAT found the delay unintentional and justified under the circumstances, emphasizing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in similar cases. The Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh evaluation, acknowledging the appellant's lack of access to electronic communications as a reason for not receiving the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793523 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2025
• 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: BALUSAMY N.
• Assessee Lawyers: GOWRISH BHARGAV K.V.
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 699/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 K.N. Gopala Heggade, HUF Kallukatte Darekoppa Post Sringeri Taluk Chikkmagalur 577 139 Karnataka PAN NO : AADHG7957D Vs. ITO Ward-1 Chikkmagalur APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Gowrish Bhargav K.V., A.R. Respondent by : Sri Balusamy N., D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 29.6.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066249856(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 2 of 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 3 of 13 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 209 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application dated 22/07/2025 for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 27/03/2025 stating the cause for such delay, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 4 of 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 5 of 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 6 of 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 7 of 13 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 8 of 13 4. On going through the above application for condonation, we find that the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 209 days for the reason that the assessee being kartha of the HUF, is a senior citizen aged 74 years lives in a remote area, a village near Sringeri, Chikkamagaluru Dist. and is entirely unfamiliar with computers and electronic communications, including emails and therefore the assessee was utterly unaware of the notices & order passed u/s 250 of the Act. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 9 of 13 belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested that the issues raised by the assessee be considered on merits. 5. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay. 6. We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee 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 appeal 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. 6.1 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 10 of 13 cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. (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 legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 6.2 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 nondeliberate 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. 6.3 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 11 of 13 have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”. 6.4 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, 209 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 209 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Further, on going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC we take a note of the fact that, despite giving three opportunities, the assessee neither filed any written submissions nor any evidence in support of the grounds of appeal; accordingly, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and therefore constrained to concur with the AO’s finding of fact and decision thereof, more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submission/documentation during the appellate proceedings. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 12 of 13 submitted that all the notices were sent on the e-mail ID, whereas the assessee in Form No.35 had specifically mentioned that the notices/communications may not be sent on e-mail. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen, 74 years old, and not a tech-savvy person. Since all the notices were sent only via e-mail, the assessee was utterly unaware of the said issuance of notices due to his inability to access emails. It is only when the tax consultant on 20.2.2025 logged into the Income Tax portal and found that the order u/s 250 of the Act was already passed on 29.6.2024. 8. Ld. D.R. on the other hand had no objection if the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Sept, 2025 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 25th Sept, 2025. VG/SPS Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.699/Bang/2025 K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 13 of 13 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 "