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

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.

2. Brief facts of the case as per form No. 35 filed by the assessee before the learned CIT – A clearly shows that the assessment order was passed on 30 December 2016, which was stated to be received by the assessee on 31 December 2016, the appeal was instituted before the learned CIT appeal on 30 July 2018, thereby it caused a substantial delay. In form No. 35, the assessee has stated that ‘yes’ there is a delay in filing the appeal however it is for the purpose of a cause that he appointed a chartered accountant after he received the notice from the income tax department, since he did not know anything about the income tax and issues was not explained properly before the learned assessing officer. Therefore, these additions have been made by the learned AO. When the chartered accountant received the assessment order, he intimated him. However, the assessee was suffering from high fever and could not go to meet the chartered accountant for further proceedings. Later on, he came to know that the assessee was suffering from dengue fever. After the recovery of the assessee, he once again met his chartered accountant and requested to do further proceedings. Further he contacted the officer and accordingly the appeal was prepared and filed, which caused a delay

3. Before the learned CIT – A also assessee was issued at least 10 notices out of which he could respond some of them but the learned CIT – A relying upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court and then after considering the reasons submitted by the assessee in paragraph No. 8 held that the assessee has failed to show any reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal. The reasons shown are neither specific nor supported by any documentary evidence such as medical certificate from any registered medical practitioner and thus the reasons shown by the assessee does not meet the threshold of diligence required under the law and further it is not supported by an affidavit. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal on account of delay.

4. The assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us, the learned authorized representative Shri Shankar Gowda submitted that the reasons shown by the assessee for filing of appeal late for sufficient cause for delay and the learned CIT – A should have considered the same. He submitted that the assessee was suffering from dengue fever and the learned CIT – A despite giving 10 opportunities, never stated that the reasons shown by the assessee are not sufficient. Had the learned CIT – A questioned during the appellate proceedings, the assessee would have submitted the affidavit, as well as any other evidence which is available with him for the same. Thus, even the condonation reason considered by the learned CIT – A also the assessee was not granted proper opportunity of hearing.

5. The learned senior departmental representative Shri Subramaniam s. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT – A stating that when the assessee was granted 10 opportunities before the learned CIT – A, he should have supported the reasons recorded for condonation of delay by filing an affidavit and also by producing additional evidence such as medical certificate. Therefore, according to him the learned CIT – A is correct as assessee failed to substantiate that the delay or 18 months in filing of the appeal is for sufficient reason. He further referred to the judicial precedents cited by the learned CIT – A while not condoning the delay.

6. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. Without considering the merits of the case, the facts stated show that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 25th of March 2014 declaring total income of ₹ 332,890/–. The return was picked up for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny concept consider the receipt as per 26 AS which is more than the receipts shown in the income tax return. The assessee furnished the details before the learned AO but the addition of ₹ 10,327,455 was made by stating that the final opportunity given by the AO to the assessee was not responded to. The facts clearly shows that the assessing officer issued a letter on 20 December 2016 asking the assessee to furnish the details giving final opportunity but only by 22 December 2016. Naturally, due to the shortage of time, it was stated by the learned assessing officer that in view of the paucity of time to conclude the assessment no further opportunity was to be granted. Thus, it is true that assessee was granted only two days time by issuing a letter on 20 December 2016 giving the assessee time up to 22 December 2016. There is no mention whether such letter is received by the assessee at all or not within such time. No matter, the assessment order was passed under section 144 read with section 143 (3) of the act on 30 December 2016.

7. The assessee received the assessment order on 31 December 2016 but filed an appeal on 30 July 2018, resulting in a significant delay that required explanation.

8. The assessee explained the delay in filing the appeal in Form No. 35, but the CIT(A) rejected it due to lack of an affidavit or a doctor’s certificate. Although 10 hearing opportunities were granted (with the assessee responding 5 times), it is unclear if the CIT(A) specifically addressed the missing affidavit or certificate. After these hearings, the appeal was dismissed for insufficient cause. Only the reasons in Form No. 35 were considered, suggesting the assessee wasn’t given adequate opportunity to explain the delay. There is no requirement in the Income Tax Act or Rules mandating an affidavit for condonation applications before the CIT(A). The assessment order itself demonstrates injustice toward the assessee, so the appeal should be heard and decided on its merits.

9. We remand appeal to the ld. CIT (A), directing assessee to submit an affidavit and supporting evidence for the appeal’s delay. The CIT (A) must consider these, decide if the appeal should be admitted, and, if so, rule on its merits after a fair hearing.

10. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23^rd March, 2026.