By Sri K v. Aravind, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8 DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT|INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1009 OF 2701 BEI|WEEN SRI C. GANESH MALLYA|PROP: ALPHA SYSTEMS, NO.154, 6 CROSS,Q MAIN, 3 BLOCK,VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092. .., APPELLAN | (BY SRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND= INCOME TAX OFFICER|WARD-6(1),BENGALURU, ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS|INCOMETAXAPPEAL|ISFILEDUNDER|SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING|OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.0/7.201L/7/ PASSED IN NO.996/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200/72008, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE|SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND|ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE.INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.0/7.7201BEARINGIN|ITANO.996/BANG/201/7FOR.THE|ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AK AK THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED|THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax|Appellate Tribunal in declining to entertain the delay of1158 days in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed this|appeal. | C 2).In.SUPDPOTTof|tneapplication seekingcondonation of delay it is submitted that an ex-parte order|was passed. Ihnat there was no notice issued by the.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) which was served)on the assessee. This was due to the fact that the§assessee had changed his’ address. Under these|circumstances, there was delay in filing the appeal. TheTribunal was of the view that since more than 3 years have|lapsed, the same does not constitute sufficient cause. ‘3.However, on hearing learned counsels, we are.of the view that appropriate interference is called for.Merely holding technicalities against the assessee is not!just and fair in the facts of this case. The reason for thedelay would also have to be considered. The reason)assigned by the assessee Deing just and reasonable, in our)view constitutes sufficient cause. Moreover, we are of the|view that the rights of the parties are required to bedecided on merits and not on merely technicalities. Hence, | on these grounds the appeal is allowed. The delay in filingthe appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. Tne appeal is)restored to file. Tne matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration on merits. Sd/- JUDGE rsk/- Sd/-| JUDGE