Delay Condoned for Illiterate Assessee – Matter Remanded | ITAT

Case Details: Muniyappa Prashanth Kumar vs. Income-tax Officer Ward 4(3)(3) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 743 (Bangalore-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member & Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member
• Vignesh, A.R. for the Appellant.
• Subramanian, D.R. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a small milk vendor and having a limited educational background, did not file his return of income for the relevant assessment year under section 139(1) on an honest and bona fide belief that his income did not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had made huge cash deposits in his savings account. In addition, the assessee made payments to contractors. The AO taxed the entire cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A and contractor payments as unexplained expenditure under section 69C in the absence of any reply from the assessee.

On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and not considering the case of the assessee on the merits. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Bangalore Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed the computation of income, along with a copy of the audited financials, and the acknowledgement of filing the audit report under section 44AB. The assessee vehemently argued that the assessee is a small milk vendor, and taxing the entire cash deposit amounting to Rs. 1.05 crores, as well as the payment made to the contractor amounting to Rs. 4.22 lakhs, is highly unjustified.

It is an undisputed fact that the assessee could not represent his case before both the authorities below. The CIT(A) did not even consider the case of the assessee on merits and dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 163 days in filing the appeal before him. It is opined that the assessee, being an illiterate person, on an honest and bona fide belief that the communication received is a mere notice and being unaware that the final appellate order has been passed, is a sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly before the CIT(A).

Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by 163 days is condoned. The entire issue in dispute is remitted to the AO’s file for decision afresh in accordance with the law.

List of Cases Referred to

• Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) (para 6.1)
• People Education and Economic Development Society (PEEDS) v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 87 (Chennai) (TM) (para 6.3)
• CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar [1987] 30 Taxman 133/[1985] 153 ITR 596 (Madras) (para 6.4).