IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.919/Bang/2025 Assessment Year :2017-18 M/s. Rukmani Finance Pvt. Ltd.

No.84, 5^th Floor, Manish Tower ITO J.C. Road Vs. Ward 5(1)(4)

Bengaluru 560 002 Bengaluru PAN NO : AAACR9552P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri T. Srinivasa, A.R.

Respondent by : Sri Subramanian, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

O R D E R

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 31.05.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053354784(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 630 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 21/04/2025 stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record:

4. On going through the above application for condonation, we find that the assessee filed the appeal with an inordinate delay of 630 days for the reason that the assessee company’s erstwhile employee Mr. Bhavar Singh though received the order of ld. CIT(A) did not bring to its notice to any of the Director nor by the Company’s auditor and hence, being unaware of the same, the necessary appeal before the ITAT could not be filed within the statutory time allowed. Moreover, the Director of the company Shri Ashok Mittal stated that he was personally mentally disturbed and pre-occupied with the treatment of his late wife Smt. Kavita Mittal who was suffering from LMD Cancer during October 2022 to August, 2024 and passed away on 22.8.2024. In these circumstances, the assessee could not file the appeal in time. The ld. A.R.submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested to consider the issues raised by the assessee on merits.

5. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay.

6. We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation, therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time.

6.1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

(3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay?

The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner.

(4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantia