Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned Despite No Response to Notices: ITAT Allows Fresh Assessment After Payment to PM’s Relief Fund[Read Order]
Although the DR opposed the condonation citing repeated non-compliance, the ITAT noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked reasoning and did not address the issues on merit
![Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned Despite No Response to Notices: ITAT Allows Fresh Assessment After Payment to PM’s Relief Fund[Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Relief-Fund-Of-PM-Income-Tax-ITAT-Condones-Delay-taxscan.jpg "Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned Despite No Response to Notices: ITAT Allows Fresh Assessment After Payment to PM’s Relief Fund[Read Order]")
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a delay of 139 days in filing an appeal, despite the appellant’s failure to respond to notices from both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] and allowed a fresh assessment subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Gautham...
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a delay of 139 days in filing an appeal, despite the appellant’s failure to respond to notices from both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] and allowed a fresh assessment subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
Gautham Kempanna, appellant-assessee, filed the appeal with a delay of 139 days and requested condonation of the delay. He explained that he did not check the portal and did not receive any SMS about the appellate order. He became aware of the order only when the AO attached the bank account. After that, he filed the appeal on 07/03/2025. The delay was condoned in the interest of justice, and the appeal was heard.
The assessee counsel said that the CIT(A) order did not explain the reasons. The counsel added that no hearing notices were received by the appellant on phone or email, so the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). The counsel also said the assessment order was passed without hearing the appellant. Therefore, both orders needed to be set aside.
A Tax Revolution? Decode the Income Tax Bill 2025 Before It’s Too Late! - Click Here
In response, the Departmental Representative(DR) said the appellant did not reply to the show cause notice from the AO or the hearing notices from the CIT(A). The DR asked to dismiss the appeal, saying no leniency was deserved.
The two member bench comprising Soundararajan K(Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Accountant Member) heard both sides and reviewed the records. The assessee did not respond to notices under sections 143(2), 142(1), or the show cause notice dated 07/03/2023. The AO completed the assessment based on available documents. The assessee also did not appear or submit anything before the CIT(A).
Read More: SATYAM SCAM: ITAT Orders Fresh Assessment for Tech Mahindra based on Telangana HC Verdict
The CIT(A) order was brief and did not discuss the notices or the case merits. Since the appellant did not properly use the opportunities before the AO and CIT(A), and the CIT(A) order was unclear, the tribunal set aside both orders and sent the case back to the AO for fresh review.
This was allowed only after the assessee paid Rs. 20,000 to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within four weeks and showed the receipt to the AO. If the payment was not made, the CIT(A) order would be restored.
Therefore,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
Shri Gautham Kempanna vs The Income Tax Officer , 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 935 , ITA No. 500/Bang/2025 , 16 May 2025 , H. Guruswamy , N. Balusamy