SHRI. SANDEEP KUMAR SURESH ,BANGALORE V. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 239/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Sandeep Kumar Suresh, the appellant, who challenged the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, regarding the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was the dismissal of his appeal due to a delay attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The appellant argued that the delay was covered under the COVID-19 exclusion as per the Supreme Court's directive, which extended the limitation period. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, and thus condoned the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a substantive hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312228 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in 167 ITR 471 (1987)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVA KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Tax effect; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 239/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Sandeep Kumar Suresh, G1, 53/1C T G Residency, Billekahalli Main Road, Bangalore – 560 076. PAN: APYPK5759B Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 4(3)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Shivakumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07-04-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 03/03/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19 and raised the following grounds: Page 2 of 5 ITA No. 239/Bang/2025 Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal (see note below) 1. The impugned Appellate order dated: 03-03- 2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the appeal, without appreciating the fact that the said period was covered under COVID 19 exclusion and Hon' ble Supreme Court of India, Suo Moto had extended the limitation by excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from the period of limitation. Rs. 11,54,301/- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely based on technicalities and further, the appellant ought not to have been denied the legal remedy, especially in light of the landmark ruling in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, reported in 167 ITR 471 (1987). Furthermore, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC should have exercised the discretion conferred under section 249(3) of the Act in a manner that promotes and upholds the substantial cause of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Rs.11,54,301/- 4. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice and thus the impugned ex- parte order is liable to be set aside. Rs.11,54,301/- 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. Same as above Total tax effect (see note below) Rs.11,54,301/- 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 28/02/2019. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued for which the assessee had not filed his reply. Thereafter to the notice u/s. Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 239/Bang/2025 142(1), the assessee filed his part reply along with the computation of income, audit profit & loss account and balance sheet. Again the assessee was asked to furnish the various details for which the assessee filed his response. Therefore the AO had confirmed the assessment based on the details available before him. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 124 days. In support of the said delay, the assessee had filed an affidavit and submitted that the assessment order was received on 08/04/2021 by email and by that time, the entire country was under lock down because of the corona pandemic. After the lock down, the assessee was able to contact the counsel and thereafter the appeal was filed and therefore the delay of 124 days has been occurred. The Ld.CIT(A) without considering the said reasons, had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 3. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 255 days. 4. The assessee in support of the said delay had filed an application in which it was explained that the earlier Income Tax practitioner Shri Rajashekar, Auditor (ITP) whom the assessee had entrusted the filing of the second appeal had failed to file the appeal in time and finally the said practitioner directed the assessee to engage another practitioner during the fourth week of January 2025. The appellant also engaged a new counsel and the present appeal has been filed and therefore the said delay of 255 days has been occurred in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The assessee also enclosed a sworn affidavit of the tax practitioner Shri Rajashekar and the affidavit of the assessee in support of the said reasons stated in the delay condonation petition and prayed to condone the said delay. Page 4 of 5 ITA No. 239/Bang/2025 6. We have perused the documents filed along with the delay condonation application and also the sworn affidavit filed by the tax practitioner and by taking into consideration the principle laid down by the various High Courts that the assessee should not be penalised for the mistakes committed by the Counsel, we are condoning the said delay of 255 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and proceeded to take up the main appeal. 7. The Ld.AR at the time of argument submitted that in view of the covid19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed in time before the Ld.CIT(A) and the said fact was not properly appreciated by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). 8. The Ld.DR per contra submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had considered the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal and therefore the order passed by him need not be disturbed. 9. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. We have perused the records and found that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 124 days which occurred during the covid19 pandemic lockdown period. If the said lockdown period is excluded, the delay is only a minimal one. We are also satisfied that the reasons stated by the assessee on the said delay is sufficient reasons by considering the situation that during the said time, the entire nation was under the grip of fear. In such circumstances, we are inclined to condone the said delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the assessee in person. Page 5 of 5 ITA No. 239/Bang/2025 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 30th April, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "