MOHAMMED FAZIL ,SHIMOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

ITA 2282/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Mohammed Fazil, the appellant, who contested the reassessment order for the Assessment Year 2018-19 issued under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was based on unexplained cash deposits and other credits in his bank account. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 200-day delay, which the CIT(A) did not condone, citing insufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the delay was not adequately considered, especially since the Assessee did not receive the assessment order directly but through an earlier consultant who failed to forward it. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) required an affidavit from the consultant, which was not a necessary condition for considering the delay in filing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831294 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; GANESH R GHALE
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDRA SHARMA
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT ITA No. 2282/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr.Mohammed Fazil, Thirthahalli Road, Ripponpete Post, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga, Karnataka – 577 426. PAN: AAIPF3446P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Shimoga. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale - Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20-01-2026 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2282/Bang/2025 is filed by Mr. Mohammed Fazil (Assessee/ Appellant) against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) on 07.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department was dismissed for the reason that the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 200 days holding that the cause shown by the Assessee is not sufficient. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2282/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 2. Brief facts of the case shows that the Assessee is an individual, non filer of the return, who has made cash deposit in his bank account. Fact shows that the Assessee deposited amount of Rs. 1,39,000/- in his HDFC bank limited account and therefore notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 30.03.2022. The Assessee did not file any return in response to that reassessment notice and further against any of the notice issued for the assessment of the income. The Assessee remained nonresponsive and therefore reference was made to Verification Unit who found that Assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 64,000/- and has received other credits in his bank account by other than cash amounting to Rs. 1,75,36,616/-. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer made an addition u/s. 69A of the Act on cash deposit of Rs. 64,000/- and further made addition at the rate of 20% on the sum of Rs. 1,75,36,616/- which was deposited other than cash and made an addition of Rs. 35,07,323/-. Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 144 of the Act determining the total income of Assessee at Rs. 35,71,323/-. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was delayed by 200 days. 3. The Assessee submitted that the delay is required to be counted from the date of receipt of the order. The Assessee has received the order by looking at e-filing portal and immediately filed an appeal within 30 days. Therefore, there is no delay in filing of the Appeal. He further stated that e-mail itself shows that Assessee was sent the e-mail of the Assessment Order. The Assessee also stated that, that e-mail belong to the erstwhile consultant, who never forwarded this Assessment Orders and therefore subsequently when the Assessee looked at the ITBA portal because of the constant demand, the Assessee changed his consultant and immediately filed the Appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) though noted all these facts but did not condone the delay as the Assessee did not file any affidavit or application of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2282/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 earlier consultant. The Ld. CIT(A) referred to atleast 20 judicial precedents and held that the delay was not for a sufficient cause and did not condone the same. Thus, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative Shri Narendra Sharma as well as Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. We find that the Assessee did not receive the Assessment Order as it was served on e-mail id of [e-mail] which was of the earlier consultant. The earlier consultant did not address the Assessment Order or advised the Assessee for filing of the Appeal. Even the Assessment Order was also not forwarded to. The Assessee came to know about the same on account of demands. In the statement of facts, in from no. 35, the Assessee has challenged that the Assessment Order was not served on the Assessee till date. He gave a detailed reason at sl. No 15 of Form No. 35. The Ld. CIT(A) did not believe the explanation of the Assessee for delay for the mere reason that the claim of the Assessee that the order was mailed to earlier consultant who did not address or attended to the Assessment Order and neither forwarded same to the Assessee was not stated on an affidavit of that consultant. We find that atleast before the Ld. CIT(A) there is no such requirement for filing an affidavit of that consultant who did not assist the Assessee at that relevant time in accordance with the provision. According to us, it is enough if the Assessee has made a statement in Form No. 35 which is signed by the Assessee and verified by him. Even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) did not state that Assessee has received the order at any time. Thus, the first claim of the Assessee that there is no delay in filing of the Appeal was not reverted. Even otherwise on the issue of sufficient cause, we find that the judicial precedents are only laying down the principles where as the sufficient cause is required to be decided on its own strength and on the facts Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2282/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 in the case of the Assessee. In case of one Assessee, similar facts may constitute sufficient cause where as it may not so in case of any other Assessee. In view of above facts which are not disputed but we find that the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in not condoning the delay of 200 days. In any way, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is also ex-parte. 5. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the whole appeal back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer with a direction to the Assessee to submit the requisite details before the Ld. Assessing Officer within 90 days from the date of the order, which may be examined by him and then decide the issue a fresh in accordance with the law. 6. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2026. Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 20th January, 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "