SREEKANTH PANDARANILATH SOMAN,BENGALURU V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 845/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Sreekanth Pandaranilath Soman against the orders passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22. The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeals, which the assessee attributed to undergoing serious medical treatment. The CIT(A) had initially refused to condone the delay, leading to the appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay credible, supported by medical documents, and thus condoned the delay. Additionally, due to the incomplete details provided during the original assessments, the Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705534 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: A.P VINOD KUMAR
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’, BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 839 - 845/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2021-22 Sreekanth Pandaranilath Soman, 630, 15th Cross, BHEL Layout, R.R Nagar, 4th Main, Bengaluru – 560 098. PAN – BIJPS 4603 M Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Bengaluru. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri A.P Vinod Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 18.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 02.07.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the ld. CIT-A(15) Bengaluru for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22. First, we take up ITA No. 839/Bang/2025, an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2015-16. ITA No.839 - 845/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 333 days, and the ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay. The assessee is now asking the Tribunal to condone this delay. 3. The assessee explained the delay before the ld. CIT-A that the delay happened because he was undergoing serious medical treatment, which took a long time. The treatment included hospital visits, rest periods, and regular follow-ups. These medical issues made it very difficult for him to collect documents, take legal advice, or file the appeal on time. The medical records submitted by the assessee support this explanation. It is well known that serious health issues and medical treatments can cause both physical and mental stress and may prevent a person from handling legal and financial matters within time. 4. Furthermore, the ld. AR submitted that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act, which means it was done without full cooperation from the assessee. This happened because the assessee could not provide all the details during the assessment due to his health problems. The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without properly looking into the reason for the delay and the supporting medical documents. 5. We have gone through the papers submitted and considered the arguments from both sides. The assessee has given sufficient medical documents to show that he was genuinely ill and under treatment. The department has not provided any strong reason to disbelieve these documents. Just because the hospital is known to the assessee does not make the medical papers false. It was also a duty upon the learned CIT- ITA No.839 - 845/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . A to cross verify the medical reports in the event he had any doubt about such medical reports. However, the learned CIT-A without cross verifying the medical reports has doubted on the genuineness of such documents which in our considered view is not proper. Accordingly, we hold that the delay was not intentional or due to negligence. It was due to genuine health problems. Hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 5.1 Furthermore, we note that during the original assessment, the assessee could not provide complete details. Thus, to give both sides a fair opportunity, we think it is best to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision as per the provisions of law. The AO shall give proper opportunity to the assessee to present all the required documents and explanations. The assessee must cooperate with the AO and provide the necessary details. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Now coming to ITA Nos. 840-845/Bang/2025 for the Asst. Years 2016-17 – 2021-22 7. The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case discussed above, therefore, respectfully following the same, send the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision as per the provisions of law. ITA No.839 - 845/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the combined result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 2nd day of July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 2nd July, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "