Venkataramappa Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Village Agriculturist’s Digital Gap Is “Sufficient Cause”: Bangalore ITAT Condoned 159-Day Delay &; Restored ₹14.30 Lakh Appeal
Summary:
The assessee, Venkataramappa, was an agriculturist residing in a village in Kolar District, Karnataka. Reassessment proceedings were initiated against him based on information regarding deposits in his bank account.
A notice u/s 148A(b) was issued electronically through the income-tax portal & was also sent by registered post. The assessee responded to the notice. However, the AO rejected his explanation through an order u/s 148A(d) & issued notice u/s 148 on 21 March 2024.
The assessee did not file a return in response to the notice u/s 148 & also failed to respond to various notices issued u/s 142(1). Reminders were sent through speed post. Subsequently, when a show-cause notice u/s 144 was issued, the assessee responded & furnished his bank statements.
The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B on 23 December 2024, assessing total income at ₹14,30,279. The assessment included an addition of ₹13,77,272 u/s 69A as unexplained money representing bank deposits & ₹53,007 as interest income.
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), but the appeal was delayed by 159 days. The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay & dismissed the appeal without examining the additions on merits.
The further appeal before the Tribunal was itself delayed by 89 days, requiring the Tribunal to examine two separate delays.
Issue before the Tribunal
The first issue was whether the 89-day delay in approaching the Tribunal deserved condonation when the CIT(A)’s order had allegedly been communicated to an email address not belonging to the assessee.
The main issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the 159-day delay merely because the assessee had participated at certain stages of the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal was also required to consider whether the assessee’s status as a village-based agriculturist unfamiliar with English & electronic communication constituted sufficient cause for delayed filing.
Assessee’s submissions
Regarding the 89-day delay before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) issued only one hearing notice on 19 September 2025 to an email address that did not belong to him. The appellate order was neither received by post nor communicated to his registered email address.
The assessee became aware of the order only at the end of February 2026 when he received a recovery notice. He then contacted his Chartered Accountant, obtained professional advice & filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Regarding the 159-day delay before the CIT(A), the assessee explained that he was an agriculturist living in a village, had no knowledge of emails or English & required time to consult & appoint an authorised representative. The delay arose from bona fide circumstances beyond his control & yielded him no advantage.
CIT(A)’s reasoning & Revenue’s position
The CIT(A) rejected the explanation as general & unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. It noted that the assessee had responded to the notice u/s 148A(b) & filed detailed factual submissions during reassessment proceedings.
According to the CIT(A), such participation disproved the claim that the assessee lacked awareness of income-tax communications or could not access electronic notices. Since communications had also been sent by speed post, sufficient cause was held not established.
The Revenue supported this reasoning & opposed condonation.
Tribunal’s findings & legal reasoning
For the 89-day delay, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s affidavit & explanation that he learned of the appellate order only upon receipt of the recovery notice. Applying the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, it held that procedural rules are handmaids of justice & that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations.
The Tribunal then examined the 159-day delay before the CIT(A). It found that notices during reassessment were not served only by email or through the portal; they were also sent by registered or speed post. Therefore, the CIT(A)’s inference that the assessee necessarily possessed knowledge of email merely because he responded to certain notices was factually incomplete.
More importantly, participation in reassessment proceedings did not disprove that the assessee was an agriculturist residing in a village. There was no material contradicting his assertion that he lacked knowledge of English & electronic communications or that appointing a representative consumed time.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee gained nothing by filing the appeal late. His explanation fell within the parameters of sufficient cause laid down in Mst. Katiji. Refusal to condone the delay would sacrifice adjudication on merits merely for a procedural default.
Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)’s order & restored the appeal for de novo adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to attend all hearings without default. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Practical implications
The ruling recognises the digital divide affecting rural taxpayers. Mere participation in selected tax proceedings does not establish familiarity with email, portal procedures or appellate limitation.
An assessee seeking condonation should nevertheless file a detailed affidavit explaining receipt of the order, date of knowledge, efforts to obtain advice & subsequent action. Recovery notices can provide important evidence regarding the actual date of knowledge.
Importantly, the Tribunal has not deleted the additions of ₹13.77 lakh & ₹53,007. The assessee must now explain the bank deposits & interest before the CIT(A). The core principle is that rural background & genuine digital unfamiliarity deserve practical consideration when procedural delay threatens substantive justice.
Cases Discussed
- Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (Supreme Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT, BANGALORE
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 13/10/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2020-21.
2. The present appeal is delayed by 89 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay, duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. As per the assessee, the learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and only one notice was issued on 19/09/2025. Further, it is submitted that the said notice was issued to an email address which does not belong to the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has also furnished a copy of the email notice. Thus, as per the assessee, he was not aware of the order passed by the learned CIT(A), as the order was not served by post and no email communication was received at the registered email address of the assessee. Further, the assessee submitted that at the end of February 2026, the assessee received the recovery notice, pursuant to which the assessee approached his Chartered Accountant to seek advice, and only thereafter did the impugned order come to the knowledge of the assessee. Thus, as per the assessee, after taking necessary advice, the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal after a delay of 89 days.
3. We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the Rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee does not stand to benefit from the late filing of the present appeal. In view of the above and having perused the application and affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period, and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the appeal.
4. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –
1. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short ‘CIT(A), NFAC’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in so far the same is against the appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.
2. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without condoning the delay of 159 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal and therefore ought to have condoned the delay and admitted the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in effectively confirming the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in dealing with the merits of the matter very superficially only and mechanically confirming the order of the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to Rs.14,30,279/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The learned assessing officer is not justified in law and in fact in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and consequently the impugned assessment order is bad in law for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed as void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The learned assessing officer could not have also assumed valid jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act when the information in possession of the learned assessing officer does not and cannot lead to formation of reason to believe on the part of the assessing officer that there is income escaping assessment on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The learned CIT(A), NFAC and the assessing officer erred in confirming the addition of deposits of Rs. 13,77,272/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money on the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. The learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that the deposits in the bank account of the appellant are only out of valid sources and there is no occasion to hold that the same are unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. The learned CIT(A), NFAC and the assessing officer erred in bringing to tax the interest income of Rs. 53,007/- which is beyond the basic tax emption limit on the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act. The interest levied being erroneous is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Having considered the submissions and perusal of the material available on record, we find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of 159 days. In Form No. 35, stating the reasons for seeking condonation of delay, the assessee submitted that he is an agriculturist and is residing in a village, having no knowledge of emails or English and as consulting and appointing an Authorised Representative took some time, the appeal was filed after a delay of 159 days. As per the assessee, the delay occurred only under bona fide circumstances which were beyond his control, and if the delay is not condoned, the same would cause hardship and irreparable loss to the assessee.
6. However, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, held that the reasons stated by the assessee are general and unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence. Further, the learned CIT(A) held that during the assessment proceedings, notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued, which was duly responded to by the assessee. It was also held that a centralised communication was also sent by speed post, and the assessee filed detailed factual submissions during the assessment proceedings, which disproves any lack of awareness or inability to access departmental communication on the part of the assessee. On the basis that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, the learned CIT(A) held that there was no sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
7. Upon perusal of the assessment order dated 23/12/2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, we find that the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act was not only generated online and served on the assessee’s e-filing account, but a copy of the notice was also sent to the assessee by registered post. In response thereto, the assessee filed his response. However, disagreeing with the submissions of the assessee, it was held, vide an order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, that it is a fit case for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21/03/2024. However, the assessee did not file any return response to the said notice. Further, the assessee also did not respond to various statutory notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. It is evident from the record that simultaneous reminder notices were also issued and served through speed post. Thereafter, a show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act was issued by the Assessment Unit, which was responded to by the assessee, and the bank statements were furnished.
8. Thus, from the perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that the notices were not only served to the assessee on the e-filing account but also served through speed post. Thus, to say that the assessee responded to the notices issued via email is not entirely correct, as the notices were also issued and served on the assessee by speed post. Further, the assessee’s participation in the assessment proceedings does not, in any manner, disprove that he is an agriculturist residing in the village. There is also no material to dispute the assessee’s submission that he has no knowledge of emails or English, and that consulting/appointing an Authorised Representative took some time for the assessee.
9. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) fall within the parameters for grant of condonation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S. Katiji (supra). Therefore, substantial justice needs to be preferred when pitted against the technical consideration. Further, in the present case, it is evident that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal.
10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Thus, we are of the view that delay should be condoned. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo consideration, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal before us do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27-Aug-2026.
