IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMS’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2844/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arfath Nazeer Ahmed, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.2, Bagur Sonnehalli, Ward – 1, Chikkatirupathi Post, Malur Taluk, Kolar.

Kolar – 563 160.

PAN – ATRPN 7765 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of hearing : 23.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], whereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine on the ground that the delay of

135 days in filing the appeal was not condoned.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was delayed by 135 days. The learned CIT(A) declined to condone the delay and consequently did not admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3. The assessee before the ld. CIT-A through the affidavit submitted that the assessee was subjected to reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. During the relevant period, there was considerable uncertainty and confusion regarding the validity of notices issued under the amended provisions governing reassessment. The controversy was ultimately settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal. Subsequent to the clarification of the legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, in the process of understanding the legal implications of the judgment and seeking professional advice, a delay of 135 days occurred in filing the appeal. However, the ld. CIT-A was not convinced with the submission of the assessee and therefore, the ld. CIT-A did not condone the delay.

4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) before us submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but was caused due to bona fide confusion prevailing at the relevant time regarding reassessment proceedings. It was contended that the assessee is now ready to comply with all procedural requirements and is keen to contest the matter on merits. It was therefore prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), while not seriously objecting to the condonation of delay, submitted that if the delay is to be condoned, an appropriate cost may be imposed upon the assessee.

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue for consideration is whether the assessee has shown “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay of 135 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). It is an undisputed position that during the relevant period there existed substantial legal uncertainty concerning reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act. The legal controversy was ultimately resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). Prior to the said decision, there was genuine ambiguity regarding the procedural and substantive validity of notices issued under the amended regime.

6.1 In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee indicates that the delay occurred on account of bona fide confusion and the time taken to obtain professional advice after the legal position was clarified. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, mala fide, or due to gross negligence.

6.2 Further, though the delay is of 135 days, it cannot be said to be inordinate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. No specific prejudice has been demonstrated by the Revenue if the delay is condoned. On the contrary, refusal to condone would deprive the assessee of an opportunity to contest