NAFEEJA BI,SHIMOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIVAMOGGA

ITA 2323/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Nafeeja Bi, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A)/NFAC which dismissed her appeal due to a delay in filing. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by her husband's severe health issues, which required her constant care and attention, thus preventing her from attending to tax matters timely. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay plausible and sufficient, leading to the condonation of the delay and the remittance of the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh evaluation on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833413 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE; GANESH R GHALE; STANDING COUNSEL REVENUE
• Assessee Lawyers: VARUN BHAT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2323/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Nafeeja Bi, W/o Shabbir Ahamed Nusrath Manzil, Jannath Nagar Sagar, Sagar – 577 401, Karnataka. PAN NO : CQKPB 0509 D Vs. ITO, Ward – 1, Shivamogga – 1. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Varun Bhat, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30.06.2025 vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078020397(1) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals') [CIT(A)']- National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law so far as the first appellate order passed by him / her is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2323/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 That the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay application without considering the settled position of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.\" That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor due to negligence but occurred due to reasonable and genuine causes beyond the control of the assessee. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated The appeal on merits, particularly when the assessee had a strong prima facie case That in A.Y. 2018-19, the department itself has accepted the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits, treating 8% of such deposits as income u/s 44AD and accepting part of the deposits as redeposits of earlier withdrawals — thereby showing consistency and acceptance of assessee's explanation in identical facts. that the assessee deposited earlier cash withdrawals into the bank account to achieve turnover targets for overdraft (OD) / limit purposes, and that such banking transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income. that in A.Y. 2020-21, under identical circumstances, the CIT(A) condoned the delay and proceeded to issue notices u/s 250 — therefore, denying condonation in A.Y. 2017-18 is inconsistent, arbitrary, and against the principle of uniformity and equity. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2323/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 46 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention on an affidavit dated 14.10.2025 stating therein the reasons for delay in filing appeal which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2323/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 3.1 On going through the above affidavit, we take note of the fact that Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2323/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 the husband of the assessee was suffering from severe kidney disease and had been undergoing dialysis every alternate day for the past several months and because of the acute medical conditions of her husband, constant care and attention was required and therefore the assessee could not concentrate on her tax matters or make arrangement for filing the appeal in time. 3.2 Having heard the learned Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned DR, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application as well as in affidavit is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which prevented her from filing appeal within the specified period under section 253 of the Act and accordingly we are inclined to condoned the short delay of 46 days in filing appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the Order of learned CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30.06.2025 wherein the learned CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal. The learned AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC as the assessee herself was under the medical treatment due to her prolonged ill health during the relevant period which restricted her mobility and made it difficult to consult any authorized representative or complete the necessary paper work for filing the appeal. As soon as she was physically fit, she took immediate steps to prepare and file the appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly the learned AR of the assessee prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC and direct to admit the appeal in the interest of justice and equity. 4.1 The learned DR on the other hand vehemently submitted that the assessee is very callous in filing not only before this Tribunal but also before Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2323/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 the learned CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal in limine. 4.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We take a note of the fact that learned CIT(A)/NFAC was not satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period and accordingly did not admit the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We find that the cause advanced by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC is sufficient and bonafide. Accordingly, we condone the short delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC and thereafter in the interest of justice and fair play, remit the entire issue in dispute with regard to the additions made by the AO to the file of learned CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) Accountant Member Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated: .02.2026. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "