TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 10(10A), and (iii) erroneous addition of Rs.3,84,000/- fixed deposit made from legitimate retirement savings as unexplained money under section 69A-were not considered, resulting in an unjust denial of appellate remedy. :. Failure to Condon the Delay - Circumstances Beyond Control The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without appreciating the genuine circumstances which caused it. The appellant had relocated post-retirement, leading to non-receipt of physical notices; he has limited digital literacy and therefore could not track online proceedings. Further, his tax consultant failed to follow up the reassessment and demand under section 147 and advised that no further tax was payable. Acting on such advice, the appellant bona fide believed that his compliance was complete upon filing the return under section 148 and paying the balance tax liability. The delay was thus unintentional, arising from circumstances beyond the appellant's control. Overlooking Judicial Precedents on Liberal Condonation The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in rejecting the appeal without considering settled judicial preceden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on an affidavit dated 13.11.2025 sworn before the notary public stating therein the reasons for the delay which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:- 4. On going through the above affidavit, we find that the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed period for the reason that the assessee being a retired Defense personnel shifted from Bangalore to his native place after the retirement in 2018.All the notices were returned undelivered on his old premise at Bengaluru as he was already vacated that premise after his retirement and he was completely unaware of the ongoing reassessment proceedings and the demand raised therein. Being a retired person with limited knowledge of digital procedures & online tax portals, he was completely dependent on a local tax consultant for filing his return & related compliance. The assessee came to know of the reassessment order only upon receiving intimation from the Department at his Kerala residential address. Upon becoming aware, he immediately approached another consultant & took steps to file the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. 6.3 Further, in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed his return of income on 25/04/2023 declaring total income of Rs. 3,63,840/-. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act along with SCN u/s 144 of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not submit any reply and accordingly, the AO drawn an inference that the assessee has nothing to say in this regard and has agreed to the variation proposed in SCN. 7.1 The AO noted that the assessee had declared the gross salary of Rs. 26,96,413/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 7,19,063/- u/s 10(10) of the Act on account of death cum retirement Gratuity and Rs. 15,25,689/- u/s 10(10A) of the Act on account of commuted value of pension received. However, as the assessee had neither furnished any reply nor documentary evidences in respect of deductions claimed in the ITR and therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained and added under the head "Salary" amounting to Rs. 22,44,752/-(7,19,063 + 15,25,689). The AO also invoked the provisions of 115BBE by stating that it is applied to the aforesaid additions. 7.2 As per the information, the AO also noticed that the assessee made time deposit of Rs. 3,84,000/- with SBI. However, as rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n what sort of necessary documentary evidences was required by the AO. When the AO himself noted that the assessee is claiming deduction of Rs. 22,44,752/- on account of death cum retirement gratuity and commuted value of pension, then the AO should have by taking into consideration the salary certificate in form 16 issued by the Air Force treated the same as exempt u/s 10 of the Act & should have excluded the same from the Gross salary. The AO was completely unjustified in disallowing the exemptions claimed by the assessee & added again to salary especially when it is in fact completely exempt from the income Tax. We are also surprised to note that on the one hand the AO himself disallowed the deduction & adding the same under head salary and on the other hand, invoked the provision of section 115BBE of the Act which is completely unacceptable. Section 115BBE can only be invoked in case of tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C OR section 69D & not in the case of additions under the head "Salary". Under the facts & circumstances discussed above, we accept the contention of the AR of the assessee that Rs. 7,19,063/- is exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. I state that the said order arose out of a reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, vide DIN .ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1062230673(1) dated 08.03.2024, wherein a demand Rs.18,40,764/- was raised primarily due to: a) Disallowance of exemption of Rs.7,19,063/- towards gratuity under section 10(10); b) Disallowance of exemption of Rs.15,25,689/- towards commuted pension under section 10(10A); and OTARI HAHA GAL VES Metrop Bengaluru City Rog Nol 12291 * 07 GOV 6-12-20 VDU % OF WOW NO. OF CORRECTIONS · One w c) Erroneous addition of Rs.3,84,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A. 3. Being aggrieved by the said reassessment order, I attempted to prefer an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. However, there was a delay of 298 days in filing the said appeal. Accordingly, the appeal came to be rejected. 4. I respectfully state that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. I am a law-abiding taxpayer and a retired defence personnel who has always complied with tax obligations to the best of my ability. The delay occurred because of genuine reasons such as relocation after retirement, lack of digital familiarity, and dependence on a consultant who inadvertently failed to keep me informed of the reassessment developments. These circumstances were entirely beyond my control and not the result of negligence or indifference. 12. I state that there was no motive, benefit, or advantage for me in delaying the filing of the appeal. On the contrary, I have faced financial and mental hardship due to the non-consideration of my appeal on merits. The omission was accidental and arose from a bona fide misunderstanding that my compliance obligations wereco NA HADA G GAL Metropolitan Area Bengaluru City ** Reg No. 12291 / 200 FINDIP Din D y Dr .: 26-12- TOFI upon filing the return in response to the notice under section 148. Hence, the delay deserves to be viewed as procedural and unintentional rather than deliberate....