Delay Excused, Ex-Parte Order Set Aside – ITAT Gives Fresh Hearing with Token Cost

Srikanth Bollapally Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Delay Excused, Ex-Parte Order Set Aside – ITAT Gives Fresh Hearing with Token Cost

In the case of Srikanth Bollapally, the Bangalore ITAT dealt with a delay of 208 days in filing appeal arising from an ex-parte order of CIT(A).

The assessee explained that:

• He was unaware of the CIT(A) order,
• Came to know of it only upon receipt of a penalty order u/s 270A, and
• Filed appeal immediately thereafter.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation and held:

• Delay was bona fide and not due to negligence or deliberate inaction.
• A liberal approach is required to advance substantial justice.

Accordingly:

• Delay was condoned, subject to a ₹1,000 cost payable to PMNRF.

On merits:

• Since the case arose from an ex-parte appellate order,
• ITAT held that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity.

Therefore, the Tribunal:

• Set aside the ex-parte order,
• Restored the matter to AO for fresh adjudication, and
• Directed the assessee to cooperate and furnish necessary documents.

Bottom line: Ignorance backed by bona fide cause can save delay-but ex-parte orders won’t stand without fair hearing. ITAT ensures second chance with discipline (cost + compliance).

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

This appeal filed by the assessee is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 208 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the delay occurred on account of the assessee not being aware of the ex-parte appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. It was contended that no communication of the said order dated 11.04.2025 was received by the assessee. The assessee came to know of the said order only on 22.12.2025 upon receipt of a penalty order dated 19.12.2025 passed under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Immediately thereafter, the assessee contacted his counsel and filed the present appeal. It was thus submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to sufficient and reasonable cause.

3. The learned Departmental Representative opposed the condonation; however, he fairly submitted that the matter may be decided in accordance with law.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is settled law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is to be adopted where sufficient cause is shown. In the present case, the explanation furnished by the assessee that he was unaware of the impugned order and came to know of it only subsequently appears to be bona fide. The delay, in our considered view, is supported by reasonable cause and does not appear to be due to any deliberate inaction or negligence. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to condone the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be deposited with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Proof of such payment shall be placed on record.

4.1 Since the appeal arises from an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), and in the interest of providing a fair opportunity to the assessee, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details/documents as may be required by the Assessing Officer.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 29^th day of April, 2026