Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Condonation of Delay Requires Fair Opportunity – ITAT Remands Matter Despite 18-Month Delay

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 3529
Case Name
Romy Varkey Mathew Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2014-15
Advertisement

Romy Varkey Mathew Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Condonation of Delay Requires Fair Opportunity – ITAT Remands Matter Despite 18-Month Delay

In , the ITAT Bangalore dealt with a case where the CIT(A) dismissed an appeal due to a substantial delay of about 18 months without admitting it.

The assessee explained that the delay occurred due to:

  • Lack of proper understanding of tax matters
  • Late engagement of a Chartered Accountant
  • Illness (dengue fever), which prevented timely action

However, the CIT(A) rejected the condonation request stating that:

  • No supporting evidence like medical certificate or affidavit was filed
  • Reasons were not adequately substantiated

The Tribunal observed that:

  • Although multiple opportunities were given, it was unclear whether the CIT(A) specifically required affidavit/evidence during proceedings
  • The law does not mandatorily require an affidavit for condonation
  • The assessee may not have been given a fair and clear opportunity to substantiate the delay
  • The assessment itself reflected procedural harshness (very limited time given by AO), indicating the need for merits-based adjudication

Accordingly, the ITAT held that:

  • The matter should not be dismissed purely on technical grounds
  • The assessee must be given an opportunity to furnish affidavit and evidence

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) for assessment year 2014 – 15 on 20 August 2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act) dated 30 December 2016 instituted before the learned CIT – A on 30 July 2018 , whereas the assessment order was received by the assessee on 30 December 2016, passed by the income tax officer Ward 1 (2) (5), Bangalore (the learned AO), was dismissed for the reason that appeal was filed before him late by approximately 18 months and assessee could not explain any sufficient cause, is not admitted.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,941

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.