LAKSHMI ASSOCIATES ,BENGALURU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 1222/BANG/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Lakshmi Associates against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 99 days due to the illness of the managing partner, who was responsible for handling all legal and tax matters. The Tribunal considered the medical condition of the managing partner as a valid reason for the delay and condoned it. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not disposed of the grounds of appeal in accordance with the law, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717545 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N
• Assessee Lawyers: K CHENGALA RAYUDU
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1222/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lakshmi Associates 88, Between 6th and 7th Cross, Sampige Road (2nd Main Road), Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 003. PAN – AABFL 4357 L Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K Chengala Rayudu, CA Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 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 17/01/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059805451(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit. It was submitted that the managing partner of the firm, who was 73 years old and responsible for handling Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1222/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 . all legal and tax matters, had fallen ill during the relevant period. A medical certificate was also filed to support this claim. Hence, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the delay was not intentional and was solely due to the ill-health of the senior citizen managing partner. Therefore, he requested that the delay be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) objected to the condonation. He submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm, and other partners could have taken steps to ensure timely filing of the appeal. He further submitted that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A), showing a negligent approach. 4. In response, the learned AR fairly admitted that there was no appearance before the learned CIT(A). However, he explained that this was due to the medical condition of the managing partner. He assured that the assessee is now prepared to comply with all proceedings and requested that one more opportunity be granted to present its case before the learned CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully considered the materials on record. We find merit in the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the delay. The supporting affidavit and medical certificate substantiate the claim of genuine hardship due to illness. Hence, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5.1 We further observe that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order without disposing of the grounds of appeal in accordance with the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1222/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 . mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The provision requires the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the submissions of the assessee. Since, the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present its case due to the medical condition of its managing partner, and in view of the assurance by the learned AR that all necessary compliance will be made, we deem it fit to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed not to seek unwarranted adjournments during the proceedings before the ld. CIT-A and make necessary compliance as and when required. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 14th day of August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 14th August, 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 Printed from counselvise.com "