MANJUNATH SEENAPPA,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 5/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Manjunath Seenappa, against an order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was initially delayed by 160 days due to the assessee not receiving the order at his new address, as it was sent to his old address. The assessee, a driver by profession and not well-versed with legal provisions, explained the circumstances leading to the delay. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the condonation of the delay and agreed to a fresh adjudication by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no mala fides on the part of the assessee and decided to condone the delay, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669536 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. SHYANBOG; C.A
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 05/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Manjunath Seenappa, No.17, 1st Stage, 3rd Phase, 1st Main Road, Manjunathnagar, Bengaluru – 560 010 PAN – AKQPM 4958 H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(2)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S.N. Shyanbog, C.A Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S,, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 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 dated 18/11/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1070423974(1) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. In the present case, the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 160 days before the learned CIT(A). It was explained by the assessee to the learned CIT(A) that the order passed under section 271E of the Act was delivered to his old address. As per the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal was due to change of address, and precisely for this ITA No.05/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 . reason, the order passed by the AO under section 271E of the Act was not received by him. Consequently, the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) occurred. 3. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee is a non- qualified person working as a driver. Due to personal difficulties, he had to change his address. However, the order was delivered to the old address. As such, according to the learned AR, there were compelling circumstances that caused the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay should be condoned. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR did not oppose the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and agreed that the matter could be set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the demand was raised by the revenue in the order passed under section 271E of the Act, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The assessee stands to gain no benefit from not complying with the provisions of law by taking remedial steps provided under the law. As such, the demand raised by the revenue shall remain intact unless demand is paid or relief is granted which is possible upon filing an appeal to a higher forum. Moreover, no mala fides can be attributed to the assessee for not complying with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. ITA No.05/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 . 5.1 Furthermore, since the assessee is a driver, it can be reasonably assumed that he was not well-versed with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in the present case deserves to be condoned, and the matter should be decided on its merits. Therefore, we condone the delay in the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the case in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 25th day of June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 25th June, 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 "