IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Parthasaradhi Sukhadevan Madhukumar, No. 38, Divya Geetham, 6^th The Income Tax Officer, Main, H.A.L., Stage II, Kodihalli, Ward – 3(3)(1), Vs.

Near Leela Palace, Bengaluru.

Bengaluru – 560 008. PAN: ACKPM4327L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian – JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 12-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20-03-2026

ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the appellate order passed by The national faceless appeal Centre (Delhi) the [learned CIT – A] for assessment year 2013 – 14 dated 8 August 2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment order dated 27th of March 2022 under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (the act)

by the National faceless assessment Centre, Delhi (the learned assessing officer) was dismissed in limine.

2. Aggrieved assessee has preferred this appeal raising several grounds of appeal, but the main concern is that learned CIT – A did not condone the delay of 122 days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not admitting it.

3. The appeal filed before the learned CIT – A shows that the assessment order was passed on 27th of March 2022, which was received by the assessee on 4 August 2022, but the appeal was filed on 26 August 2022. The assessee stated in form No. 35 that there was no delay in filing the appeal (column No. 14 of form No. 35). However, the learned CIT – A in paragraph No. 2 of the appellate order noted that assessee has filed appeal beyond the prescribed time causing a delay of 122 days and no petition for condonation of delay was filed and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.

4. During appellate proceedings, the learned CIT – A granted an opportunity of hearing to the assessee that in form No. 35 the assessee has stated that there was no delay in filing of the appeal but there is delay in filing of the appeal as perform No. 35.

5. The assessee submitted his reply on 7 August 2025 wherein it was stated that assessee has already replied to this notice on 8 March 2024, 22 January 2025 wherein condonation of delay was filed.

Thereafter 25^th July 2022 also assessee replied.

6. The assessee submitted that the assessment order was dated 27 March 2022. The assessee is a senior citizen who received intimation only of the penal notice under section 271B and 271F. The assessee’s tax consultant who was abroad from the first week of March till end of April. It is only by receiving the reminder in respect of the penalty that the appellant enquired into the matter and contacted his tax consultant. The preparation of the appeal took some time considering that it related to assessment year 2013 – 14 and even basic records such as form No. 16 is not easily available. Therefore, there is some delay in filing the appeal. It was further stated that the date of service of the order and the notice of demand was only on 4 August 2022 being the date on which the assessee logged into his e-filing portal and access the assessment order.

7. Thus, the assessee firstly contended that there is no delay and secondly even if there is a delay which is considered by the learned CIT – A is for a ‘sufficient cause’ and therefore the appeal of the assessee should be admitted. The assessee also specifically stated that the learned CIT – A has asked for any evidence supporting the delay which is not available. The assessee submitted that the email accompanying the assessment order under section 148 is also not available on the portal. The reminders for penalty under section 271F and 271 (1) (b) dated 25th of July 2022 was submitted. The assessee took the date of logging into the ITBA portal on 4 August 2022 and was taken as the date of receipt of the order. The ass