IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1009 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI C. GANESH MALLYA PROP: ALPHA SYSTEMS, NO.154, 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.
(BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), BENGALURU.
(BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.07.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.996/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.07.2017 BEARING IN ITA NO.996/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in declining to entertain the delay of 1158 days in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed this appeal.
2. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay it is submitted that an ex-parte order was passed. That there was no notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) which was served on the assessee. This was due to the fact that the assessee had changed his address. Under these circumstances, there was delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal was of the view that since more than 3 years have lapsed, the same does not constitute sufficient cause.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. Merely holding technicalities against the assessee is not just and fair in the facts of this case. The reason for the delay would also have to be considered. The reason assigned by the assessee being just and reasonable, in our view constitutes sufficient cause. Moreover, we are of the view that the rights of the parties are required to be decided on merits and not on merely technicalities. Hence, on these grounds the appeal is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The appeal is restored to file.
The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration on merits.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-