M/S LAKSHMI CAR ZONE PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 2222/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Lakshmi Car Zone Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(A) -11, Bengaluru, for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The appeals were initially delayed due to internal disputes within the company, affecting the handling of tax matters. The Tribunal considered the circumstances leading to the delay, including a police complaint and the resolution of the internal dispute, and decided to condone the delay and restore the cases for fresh evaluation by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842187 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AZHAR ZAIN VP
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT PAI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

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. 2216-2230/Bang/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2018-19 M/s Lakshmi Car Zone Pvt. Ltd. N.8A, Garebhavi Palya, Begur, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru – 560 068. PAN – AACCL 3445 P Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Hemant Pai, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Azhar Zain VP, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 05.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 O R D E R PER BENCH: The present appeals, at the instance of the assessee, are directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereafter the Act) by the CIT(A) -11, Bengaluru dated 21st March 2024 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there was a delay in filing all the captioned appeals both before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as well as before ITAT. The delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) was of 238 days in 5 appeals, 1051 in one appeal and 563 days in another appeal, whereas the delay in filing the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2216 - 2230/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . appeals before the ITAT was approximately 500 days in majority of the cases except in one case where the delay was of 248 days only. The delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) was not condoned. 3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) appearing before us submitted that there was a dispute between the assessee and an employee who was handling the tax matters, including issues relating to the relevant financial years in the subject captioned. Due to this dispute, the employee withheld crucial information regarding the pending tax disputes with the Department. A complaint was also filed with the police authorities in this regard, and the matter was resolved at a later stage. Owing to these circumstances, the assessee could not file all the appeals before the learned CIT(A) as well as before the ITAT within the statutory time limit. In support of the above contention, the learned AR filed an affidavit along with other supporting documents. Accordingly, the learned AR prayed for condonation of the delay and for admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3.1 It was further submitted by the learned AR that, due to the aforesaid dispute, the assessee could not appear before the authorities below and was also unable to make necessary compliances in support of its case. Therefore, the learned AR prayed that all the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection if all the matters are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, the learned DR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2216 - 2230/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . submitted that some nominal cost may be imposed on the assessee for its negligent approach. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of both sides, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5.1 Since the assessee could not properly present its case before the authorities below, we deem it appropriate to restore all the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5.2 However, considering the delay on the part of the assessee, we impose a cost of ₹500 per year of default for each appeal. The said cost shall be paid by the assessee to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. Hence, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 25th day of February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 25th February, 2026 / vms / Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2216 - 2230/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . 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 "