आदेश/ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

1. ITA Nos. 2250 & 2251/BANG/2025 have been filed by Kilari Jagannatham Suwresh [The Assessee/ Appellant] for assessment years 2017-18 and 2020- 21, while ITA Nos. 2252 to 2254/BANG/2025 have been submitted by Kilari Lakshmi Suthaa[ The Assessee/ Appellant] for assessment years 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2020-21. These appeals are against the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals)-11, Bengaluru [Ld. CIT(A)] dated March 27, 2023. All appeals were filed belatedly with delays of 861 and 870 days before the ITAT.

2. The assessee has submitted an application seeking condonation of delay. The explanation provided is that the assessee received an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 23.3.2023/27.3.2023, which dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. Although the appeal ought to have been filed within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order, it was instead filed on 8.10.2025, resulting in a delay of 870 days.

3. The delay stated to be attributed to the fact that both the assessee and his spouse served as Directors of M/s. Lakshmi Car Zone Pvt. Ltd., which operates as a Nissan car dealership. During the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the company encountered substantial losses and operational challenges, resulting in an inability to fulfil salary commitments. As a result, the majority of employees were terminated, and only essential personnel were retained. Statutory compliance responsibilities were delegated to Mr. Dilip K.S., and the assessee proceeded under the bona fide assumption that Mr. Dilip K.S. had managed all required compliance matters.

4. In March 2025, following consultation with new legal counsel regarding unrelated issues, the assessee became aware of several ex parte assessment and penalty orders. A subsequent inquiry determined that Mr. Dilip K.S. had deliberately withheld statutory notices and orders, failing to relay them to the appropriate professionals or Directors due to personal grievances. On 24 March 2025, the assessee filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Dilip K.S., who admitted to withholding statutory information during the police investigation. All supporting documentation was duly submitted. Mr. Dilip K.S. could not be located until September 2025. Efforts to retrieve statutory records and documents continued, resulting in the filing of the present appeals in October 2025, thereby accounting for the delay.

5. It is submitted that The delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to the aforementioned circumstances. It is further noted that, in a similar case involving Lakshmi Car Zone Pvt. Ltd., the Coordinate Bench, by order dated 25.2.2026, condoned a comparable delay and remitted the matter to the learned Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The relevant order has been placed on record. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the delay of 870 days in filing the appeals be condoned.

6. Arguing all the appeals and also the condonation petitions filed by both these assesses, The learned Authorized Representative, Shri Hemant Pai, Advocate , strongly endorsed the arguments presented in the aforementioned petition and referenced the order issued by the Coordinate Bench on 25 February 2026 in the case of Lakshmi Car Zone Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, he submitted that the delay warrants condonation.

7. Shri Shivananda H. Kalakeri, the learned CIT(DR), submitted that delays should only be condoned when the assessee establishes sufficient cause. Without such justification, condonation cannot be permitted. He observed that Mr. Dilip K.S. had no involvement in income tax matters, nor does the assessee assigned him responsibility for these issues; his duties were confined to administrative functions of that company. Shri Kalakeri also referred to Mr. Dilip K.S.'s statement dated 27.4.2025, as well as the order issued by the Coordinate Bench, which does not acknowledge ‘sufficient cause’ but rather imposes a nom