SOHANLALJI ASHOK SEERVI,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 509/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri. Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response to multiple notices. The assessee, being technologically inept and relying on an accountant for legal compliances, was unaware of the notices sent by the CIT(A) and the AO. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay of 436 days. The ITAT decided to restore the issues to the AO, providing the assessee another opportunity to present his case, emphasizing the principles of justice and equity.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711779 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.509/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sohanlalji Ashok Seervi, No.64, Arunachalam, Mudhaliyer Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051, Karnataka. PAN : FGZPS 2712 H Vs. ITO, Ward – 1(2)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Nitin, CA Revenue by : Shri. Pradeep S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against CIT(A)’s order vide Order No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1018676174(1) dated 08.10.2019, for the Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 436 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of this appeal and we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 436 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.509/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 3. At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to the notices issued on 27.01.2021, 30.09.2022, 08.09.2023 and 04.10.2023 for filing the written submissions or representing the case. The learned AR submitted that assessee has only received primary education and is not conversant with operating computer systems. Assessee is technologically inept and therefore had employed an accountant to update accounts on a regular basis to assist him with certain legal compliances wherever required. But the accountant did not intimate the assessee about the receipt of the notices issued by the CIT(A) and hence assessee did not file the appeal within the stipulated time. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO. 4. The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file the written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and AO passed order u/s 144 of the Act for non compliance by the assessee. Assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he is technologically inept and therefore had employed an accountant to update accounts on a regular basis to assist him with certain legal compliances wherever required. But the accountant did not intimate the assessee about the receipt of the notices issued by the CIT(A) & AO and hence assessee did not file the appeal within the stipulated time.In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided one more opportunity to represent his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The assessee has to pay the cost and produce Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.509/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 necessary evidence to the AO before taking up the case. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. In case of failure no second leniency shall be granted. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member- Bangalore. Dated: 24.07.2025. /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 "