NINGAIAH SIDDU,BANGALORE V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS, MYSORE

ITA 922/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ningaiah Siddu, the appellant, who contested the penalty levied by the AO under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.24,68,895. This penalty was based on an addition of Rs.3,16,52,500 under section 69C of the Act, which was initially contested in the CIT(A)/NFAC but was dismissed due to a delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT found that the assessee was unable to represent his case adequately at earlier stages due to not having an email ID and thus not being able to access the Income Tax portal for notices and orders. The Tribunal's decision to remit the case back to the AO was based on the need for a proper opportunity of hearing and a thorough examination of the additions made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773445 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: NTPC Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: THARUN KOTHARI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 69C

Judgement Text

"ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ningaiah Siddu No.429, Shivarathreeswara Nagar Bannimantap B Extension Mysore 570 015 PAN NO :ABCPN4752B Vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & TPS Mysore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Tharun Kothari, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 11.7.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066622649(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 2 of 11 3. The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 3 of 11 3.1 We have heard the both the parties on admission of additional grounds. In our opinion, all the facts are already on record and there is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts for the purpose of adjudication of above ground. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), we inclined to admit the additional ground for the purpose of adjudication as there was no investigation of any fresh facts otherwise on record and the action of the assessee is bonafide. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 4 of 11 4. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 204 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 26.06.2025 stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 5 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 6 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 7 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 8 of 11 4.1 Perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the specified period before this Tribunal, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31.3.2021 declaring Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 9 of 11 total income of Rs.43,01,340/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny through CASS. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act on 5.9.2022 and assessed on a total income of Rs.3,59,53,840/- by making an addition u/s 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,16,52,500/-. Subsequently, the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act were initiated in respect of addition made u/s 69C of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the penalty notices, the AO completed the penalty proceedings by levying penalty of Rs.24,68,895/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not represent its case before the AO and accordingly, the AO levied the penalty of Rs.24,68,895/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the AO to substantiate his claim. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 10 of 11 10. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that assessee could not represent his case before the AO. Further, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before him. The reason as submitted by the assessee is that the assessee does not have any e-mail ID and therefore, he was not capable of logging into the Income Tax portal and verifying the notices issued and order passed. Further, the email id given was of the former auditor and the assessee does not have access to the above said email id. After going through the above explanation, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the assessee is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the penalty order passed by the AO in a haste manner & without giving proper opportunity of hearing, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO to decide afresh in accordance with law after verifying the quantum of addition sustained by the First Appellate Authority. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.922/Bang/2025 Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 11 of 11 Order pronounced in the open court on 26th Sept, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Mahirishi) Vice President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 26th Sept, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "