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