SEKARIPURAM DEVARAJ GOPALAKRISHNAN,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

SA 58/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan against the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the assessee's pursuit of remedy through a grievance redressal mechanism, under the bonafide belief that it was the correct course of action. The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, citing judicial precedents. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to examine the issues on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471024 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: QT Vs. K.S.P. Shanmughavel Nadar (1985) 153 ITR 596, Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C.J.YESWANTH RAM
• Section: 250; 153

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, 19-8 Swaraj, Dinnur Main Road, R. T. Nagar, Bangalore – 560 032. PAN : AARPG 2781 P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(3)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sekaripuram Devaraj Gopalakrishnan, Bangalore – 560 032. PAN : AARPG 2781 P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(3)(3), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. C. J. Yeswanthram, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 07.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 22.07.2024 passed under section 250 of the Act. The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 2 of 8 2. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before him. The delay condonation application filed before the CIT(A) reads as follows: ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 3 of 8 ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 4 of 8 ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 5 of 8 ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 6 of 8 3. The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard. 4. We find that the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is only as a result of the fact that the assessee was pursuing / seeking remedy through the grievance redressal mechanism on the bonafide belief that grievance redressal was the correct course of action. On the facts of the instant case, there is “sufficient cause” for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we condone the delay of 188 days in filing the appeal before the ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 7 of 8 CIT(A). In condoning the delay, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements :  QT Vs. K.S.P. Shanmughavel Nadar reported in (1985) 153 ITR 596  Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 5. Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), the issue on merits needs to be examined by CIT(A). For the aforesaid purpose, the matter is restored to the files of the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. SP No.58/Bang/2024 6. Since we have disposed off the Income Tax Appeal, the above stay petition is dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and SP is dismissed as infructuous. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore, Dated : 08.10.2024. /NS/* ITA No.1816/Bang/2024 SP No.58/Bang/2024 (in ITA No1816/Bang/2024) Page 8 of 8 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "