Arun Machaiah Cheppudira Somaiah Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Bangalore against the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal was delayed by 667 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal found that the reasons fell within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. Referring to the principle that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not stand to benefit from the delayed filing. On examining the affidavit, it held that sufficient cause had been shown and condoned the delay before proceeding to decide the appeal.
The assessee challenged the assessment on several grounds, including that the assessment order was bad in law, violated the principles of natural justice, and that the CIT(A) had passed the appellate order for non-prosecution without complying with Sections 250(6) and 250(4). The assessee also challenged the addition of 竄ｹ22,18,713 made under Section 69A of the Act, contended that Section 69A was inapplicable to the facts of the case, alleged that the addition was based on surmises and presumptions, challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1), and disputed the demand raised under Section 156.
