MOGALI SRIKANTH BHARATHI,BENGALURU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1689/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Shri Mogali Vijaykumar Srikanth and Smt. Mogali Srikanth Bharathi against the orders of the CIT(A), which were dismissed due to delays in filing. The assessees argued that they had not received defect notices regarding the delays, and thus, their appeals were dismissed without proper consideration. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately communicated the defects in the filing of the appeals, leading to the decision to allow the appeals for statistical purposes and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the delay condonation applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37683 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LAKSHMI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 73

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHI. S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and Assessment Years Appellant Respondent 1686, 1687/Bang/2024 2013-14, 2015-16 Shri. Mogali Vijaykumar Srikanth, 54, Vijayalakshmi Nivas, Sajjan Rao Road, Bangalore – 560 018. PAN : ARMPS 5351 F The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle -1(3), Bangalore. 1688, 1689/Bang/2024 2013-14, 2014-15 Smt. Mogali Srikanth Bharathi, 54, Vijayalakshmi Nivas, Sajjan Rao Road, Bangalore – 560 018. PAN : AGSPB 4655 J -do- Appellant by : Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 15.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These appeals at the instance of the two assessees are directed against two Orders of CIT(A) both dated 22.04.2024, passed under section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 73 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Assessees have filed application for condonation of delay along ITA Nos.1686 to 1689/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 with affidavit stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of these appeals. On perusal of the reasons stated for late filing of the appeals, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessees as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 3. Since common issues are raised in these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated Order. 4. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessees in limine without adjudicating on merits. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 160 days and 148 days in filing the appeals before him [for both the assessees, there were identical delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) has observed that in spite of notices issued, assessees have not appeared nor filed any written submissions [refer para 3.1 of the impugned Orders of the CIT(A)]. 5. Learned AR submitted that assessees had not received any defect notices stating therein that there was a delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). It was submitted that assessees had omitted to file the delay condonation application before the CIT(A). It is stated that CIT(A) has erred in not issuing defect notices intimating that appeals are filed belatedly and no delay condonation applications are filed. The assessees before the Tribunal have filed delay condonation applications explaining the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). 6. The learned DR was duly heard. ITA Nos.1686 to 1689/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessees in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The assessees did not appear before the CIT(A) nor did they file their written submissions. Assessees also omitted to file delay condonation applications before the CIT(A). We notice from the Orders of the CIT(A) that only two hearing notices were issued from the Office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). There is nothing on record to show that defect notices were issued from the Office of the CIT(A) intimating the assessees that appeals have been filed belatedly and no condonation applications have been filed. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessees should be provided with one more opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA. The affidavit filed by assessees stating the reasons for belated filing of the appeals before the FAA shall be taken on record by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall pass fresh Orders on the delay condonation application and shall take a decision in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (PADMVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore, Dated : 16.10.2024. ITA Nos.1686 to 1689/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "