SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

ITA 2266/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals filed by Shri G K Ravi against the orders of the CIT(A) for various assessment years, which were initially dismissed due to delays in filing. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delays, including the assessee's health issues and lack of awareness of procedural requirements. The Tribunal found that the delays were justified due to the assessee's medical conditions and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeals, providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785159 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT(S) V. RESPONDENT(S) 1. 1355/Bang/2024 2011-12 Shri G K Ravi, Gottegere, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 083. PAN: ADFPR 1176C The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(4), Bangalore. 2. 2264/Bang/2024 2013-14 3. 2265/Bang/2024 2014-15 4. 2266/Bang/2024 2015-16 5. 2267/Bang/2024 2016-17 6. 2268/Bang/2024 2017-18 7. 2269/Bang/2024 2018-19 8. 1159/Bang/2024 2019-20 Appellant(s) by : Shri T.R. Sathynarayana, CA Respondent(s) by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per bench : 1. All these 8 appeals are filed by the assessee wherein appeal for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 are against the consolidated Appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore [ld. CIT(A)] dated 19.3.2024 dismissing the appeals for the reason that the delay in filing the appeals was not condoned. 2. The appeal for AY 2011-2 is against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 16.5.2024 which is also dismissed as the delay in filing the appeal before him was not condoned. 3. Even the appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 before us are filed late by 178 days. The assessee has submitted that delay in filing all the appeals before the Tribunal is arising out of the fact that the assessee has filed a consolidated appeal before the Tribunal for all these assessment years. The assessee was made aware by the ITAT that these consolidated appeals are not entertainable for the reason that appeal for each year is required to be Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 2 of 18 filed separately. He referred to ITA No. 1159/Bang/2024 filed by the assessee on 13.6.2024 wherein in the appeal details it is mentioned that assessee is filing appeal for AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20. The assessee submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is a consolidated order for all these years dated 19.3.2024 but received by the assessee on 29.5.2024 and the appeal is filed by the assessee in one Form 36 for all those years on 13.6.2024. Then he referred to the intimation issued by the Registry on 24.6.2024 asking him that the assessment year in col. No. of the appeal details is not correctly filled in. Based on this intimation, the assessee corrected all those details and filed each appeal individually and payment of filing fees separately and same were presented before the Registry on 25.11.2024. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee argued that assessee is not aware about the procedures of the Tribunal. Therefore, assessee paid only one filing fees of Rs.10,000/- for all these years, wrongly mentioned the Respondent as CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore as he was not aware that who is the Respondent in this case, but as he has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A), he mentioned the name of CIT(A) as the Respondent. Assessee was also not aware that there should be a separate appeal to be filed against each of the appeal disposed of by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore filed a combined appeal for all these years which is in time. 5. It was also the case of the assessee that assessee was issued a notice by the Registry fixing the date of hearing on 18.7.2024 registering the appeal as ITA No.1159/Bang/2024 only for AY 2019-20, though appeal was filed for all the years in one Form 36. Therefore assessee was under confusion that whether the appeal for all the years would be heard together based on this Form 36 or not. On 18.7.2024 as nobody remained present before the Bench, the case was adjourned to 21.8.2024. Subsequently on 21.8.2024, adjournment request was sent by email wherein the assessee submitted that he has received intimation about the defect in his appeals and he is in the process and therefore some time may be given. Based on this, the Coordinate Bench passed an order on 21.8.2024 adjourning the case to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 3 of 18 7.10.2024. Subsequently when the matter was posted on 7.10.2024, the appeal was adjourned to 26.11.2024 and on that date assessee submitted that he is sick, admitted to the hospital and soon he will file the appeal. Later on, 25.11.2024 he filed all the appeals and also made a request for condonation of delay. He therefore says that there is no delay in filing of the appeals and all these appeals should have been treated as filed on 13.6.2024. 6. The ld. AR reiterated the same facts. The ld. DR submitted that there is no sufficient cause in filing of the appeals late before the Tribunal and therefore the delay may not be condoned. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the facts recorded earlier. These facts are also borne out from the record produced before us. The facts clearly show that assessee has filed the combined appeal against the consolidated order passed by the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20. The order of the CIT(A) was passed on 19.3.2024 which was received by the asse on 29.5.2024 and appeal was filed on 13.6.2024. Thus, it is clear that the appeal for AY 2019-20 has been filed in time which is also stated by the Registry as such. The defect memo was issued citing several defects in Form 36. The defect memo says that a separate appeal needs to be filed for each of the assessment year, Respondent’s name is not properly written, and the assessment year is also not properly filled in. Based on this, the assessee prepared separate appeals and filed the same on 25.11.2024. The main reason of delay from 24.6.2024 to 25.11.2024 is also on account of ill-health of the assessee. The assessee has filed an affidavit wherein it was stated that assessee has prolonged illness and Doctors have advised him complete bed rest. It is also shown that according to the medical history the assessee is consistently in and out of the hospital. He has also undergone a heart surgery on 29.5.2024. Even after the heart surgery he was constantly in and out of the hospital. In view of the above facts, we find that the delay in filing of the appeal for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 is for sufficient reason and therefore all these appeals are admitted. For AY 2019-20 the appeal is filed in time and there is no delay. Appeal for AY 2011-12 is in time and therefore same is also admitted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 4 of 18 8. The brief facts of the case show that search was conducted on third party Mr. Puttuuraj on 10.9.2018. Pursuant to that search, search was conducted on 1.11.2018 at the residence of the assessee. Consequent to search carried out, some incriminating evidence were found and based on that the assessment of the assessee was centralized by passing an order u/s. 127 of the Act on 2.7.2019. Consequent to that, a notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee for all these years which was complied with by filing the return of income. A notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was also issued to the assessee and objections of the assessee were considered, and assessment orders were passed for all these years. 9. The claim of the assessee before the AO was that assessee has considered all the income in his return of income and further there is no incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. 10. On identical facts and circumstances income for AYs 2013-14 to 2019-20 was assessed at Rs.3,97,62,981, Rs.46,93,384, Rs.1,03,90,104, Rs.5,86,03,541, Rs.2,28,56,970, Rs.5,58,95,234 & Rs.2,92,59,772 respectively. The assessment order for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 were passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) on 27.9.2021 whereas assessment order for AY 2019- 20 was passed u/s. 143(3) on 27.9.2021. 11. The assessee filed the appeals for all these 7 years before the ld. CIT(A) on 25.1.2023 & 30.1.2023 which has a delay of 455 days to 460 days. The ld. CIT(A) found that there is an average delay of 459 days. In form no 35 reasons for delay was mentioned that assessee was stated to be a sick person by nature and has all the health issues such as diabetes, hypertension and has been admitted to the hospitals frequently, hence could not find time to attend business affairs and hence delay may be condoned. This was the cause shown by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. 12. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on several days, notices were sent to the assessee. The assessee relied upon the reasons for delay as filed in Form 35 and thereafter the ld. CIT(A) held that there is no sufficient Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 5 of 18 cause in filing of the appeals late. Accordingly, he passed an order not condoning the delay and the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by appellate order dated 19.3.2024 as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 6 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 7 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 8 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 9 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 10 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 11 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 12 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 13 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 14 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 15 of 18 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 16 of 18 13. Against this appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 14. Similarly for AY 2011-12 also, the ld. CIT(A) noted that appeal is filed late by 167 days and the same reasons for delay in filing he appeal was mentioned. During the appellate proceedings, several opportunities were granted, but the assessee did not explain the delay and accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12 was also not admitted. 15. Now the assessee is in appeal before us stating that the ld. CIT(A) has not discussed the issue on merits but has not admitted the appeals of the assessee holding that there is no sufficient cause in filing the appeals late before him. The ld. AR submitted 1016 pages of the medical history report of the assessee. We have carefully perused the same. 16. The ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) stating that when all these details are not produced before the ld. CIT(A) and merely two line condonation petition is stated, there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) stating the delay is not for sufficient cause. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 17 of 18 17. We have carefully perused all the records produced before us. We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed on 19.3.2024 and the assessment orders are all dated September 2021. The medical reports produced before us show that assessee has a history of coronary disease. He was admitted on 16.5.2024 and discharged on 23.5.2024. He was undergoing medical treatment. The surgery was conducted on 17.5.2024 and 21.5.2024. This is the certificate in the form of discharge summary of Apollo Hospital. Earlier there is also a history that he was admitted on 21.1.2022 and discharged on 25.1.2022 by Apollo Hospital, Bangalore. There is also a history that he was admitted on 7.10.2022 and discharged on 10.10.2022. There are many such instances of admission and discharge produced before us. We are not going into the minute facts of each of them. 18. But looking at the order of the ld. CIT(A) it is mentioned that assessee has mentioned only in two lines the request for condonation of delay which do not describe the complete history of the medical illness of the assessee. Further the ld. CIT(A) has also noted that the actual delay in filing of the appeals after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is approx. 240 days. It is also true that the hearing took place before the ld. CIT(A) in the month of March 2024 and the last hearing for AY 2011-12 was on 30.5.2024. at that time admittedly the assessee was in hospital and underwent heart surgery. Therefore, looking at the medical history it is apparent that the delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) is for sufficient cause. 19. However, we find that nothing was produced before the ld. CIT(A) in the form of medical report of the appellant which is produced before us. Thus, the ld CIT (A) was not presented with complete facts for reasons in filing appeal belatedly. 20. Therefore, In the interest of justice, we direct the assessee to file the detailed explanation of the reasons for filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) late by making proper petition along with all the medical reports of the appellant placed before us. The ld. CIT(A) may reconsider the same and admit the appeal of the assessee, if the delay is found to be for sufficient cause and Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1355, 2264/B/2024 etc. Page 18 of 18 then decide the issue on merits. We also direct the ld. CIT(A) not to adopt a pedantic and hypertechnical approach while deciding the application for condonation of delay. We also direct the ld. CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee to substantiate his case for condonation of delay as well as on merits, if the situation so arises. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) as indicated above. 21. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of October 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 29th October, 2025. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant(s) 2. Respondent(s) 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "