IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Balaji Vividodeeshagala Souharda Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Rader Complex, 1^st Floor, Haveri.

Medleri Roadh Averi, Ranibennur – 581 115. .

PAN – ABKAS 9046 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, AR Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 31/05/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065299734(1) for the assessment year

2019-20.

2. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 31^st May 2024. The statutory time limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal is sixty days from the date of receipt of the appellate order. In the present case, however, the appeal was filed only on 4^th April 2025, resulting in a delay of 248 days. The assessee has moved a petition seeking condonation of the delay, supported by an affidavit, wherein the reasons for the delay have been explained. It is submitted that the assessee, owing to lack of awareness and limited understanding of tax procedures, was not aware that the order had already been passed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee came to know about the order only when he received a promotional notice under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, upon which he consulted his tax professional. It is further explained that the delay occurred on account of lapses and negligence on the part of the tax consultant who failed to take timely steps. The assessee has emphasized that the delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide, but a result of circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed for the condonation of delay and to decide the issue on merit of the case.

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.

4. We have carefully considered the condonation petition, the explanation offered by the assessee, and the submissions of the learned representatives. We find that the explanation is supported by consistent judicial precedents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471, has held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and that refusing to condone delay may defeat the cause of substantial justice. Similarly, in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an innocent party should not suffer for the negligence of his advocate. It is also relevant to note the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998, wherein it was held that the length of the delay is not material, but the acceptability of the explanation is the true test. Further, in the cases of Shakti Clearing Agency (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, 80 TTJ 668 (Rajkot) and Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. DCIT, 280 ITR 357 (Madras), the Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay when no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee.

5. In the facts before us, we find that the delay is primarily attributable to lapses of the tax consultant, which constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. The assessee cannot be denied his right of appeal merely because of the fault of his representative. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or intended to secure an undue advantage. On the contrary, the material shows that the assessee acted promptly and with diligence as soon as he became aware of the appellate order. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances