Case Law Details
Reddy Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 143 days without examining the merits. The delay was explained as arising from resignation of the employee handling tax matters, causing administrative disruption and delay in filing the appeal.
The ITAT accepted this explanation as a bona fide and reasonable cause, reiterating that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays to ensure substantial justice. It held that a taxpayer should not be denied the right to contest on merits due to procedural lapses.
Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)’s order, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish necessary evidence.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.09.2025 for Assessment Year 2021–22.
2. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 143 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), which was not condoned. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed in limine, without adjudicating the issues on merits by the ld. CIT-A. The Assessee had filed a condonation petition before the learned CIT(A), explaining that the delay occurred due to the resignation of the employee handling tax matters, and the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time until a replacement was appointed.
3. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) further before us submitted that the delay was caused by genuine and bona fide reasons beyond the control of the Assessee. It was contended that the Assessee has a strong case on merits and should not be denied an opportunity of being heard due to a technical lapse. The learned AR further undertook to ensure due compliance in the set aside proceedings and prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the Assessee, being a private limited company with adequate resources and personnel, ought to have ensured timely compliance. However, the learned DR fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The primary issue for our consideration is whether the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. It is a settled principle of law that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay, provided the delay is supported by reasonable and bona fide cause. In the present case, the explanation offered by the Assessee regarding the resignation of the concerned employee and the resultant administrative disruption appears to be plausible and constitutes a reasonable cause for the delay. Furthermore, in our considered opinion, the assessee should not be deprived of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits merely on account of a procedural lapse. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 143 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). We further set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The Assessee is directed to extend full cooperation and shall not seek unwarranted adjournments. The Assessee is also at liberty to raise all contentions and file necessary evidence in support of its case. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on day of April, 2026
Author Bio
