RENUKA SHETTY,KARNATAKA vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, UDUPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1620/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 September 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions uploaded on 09.05.2025 were not considered by the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance despite multiple opportunities. However, the assessee claimed to have uploaded detailed submissions which were not considered by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred by not considering the assessee's submissions before dismissing the appeal, and whether additions under Sections 68 and 69 and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were validly made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 69,Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 07.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.05.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076254500(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

l. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,11,61,525/- as made by the Ld.AO without appreciating the facts and legal submissions placed on record. That the impugned

ITA No.1620/Bang/2025 Renuka Shetty, Udupi Page 2 of 4 appellate order dated 16.05.2025 as passed u/s 250 of the Act is wholly unlawful, opposed to law and against the principles of natural justice and accordingly the order is liable to be set aside on the grounds of non-consideration of the submissions as made by the appellant on the ITBA portal on 09.05.2025. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,00,000/- as unexplained credits U/s.68 of the Act as made by the Ld.AO without application of mind to the facts of the case that the cash deposits are out of the gift received from the parents/grandparents and the cash withdrawals made by the appellant.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.90,61,525/- as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act without properly appreciating the facts and material on record md erroneously concluding that the assessee has failed to make any submission, which is contrary to the record and wholly untenable. The Lad. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi failed to exercise his appellate jurisdiction judiciously and has rendered a perverse finding, thereby rendering the order unsustainable in law.

4.

On the facts and in the circumstances of' the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of initiation of the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act without even addressing the initiation of the penalty. The penalty notice dated 28.12.2017 was issued without application of mind, failing to specify whether the charge was for concealment or furnishing Inaccurate particulars. Such ambiguity renders the initiation invalid and void ab initio. The appellant prays for quashing of the penalty proceedings on this ground.

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the ground No.1 as raised by the assessee & vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 16/05/2025 stating that despite availing multiple opportunity of hearing including dated 25/12/2020, 04/10/2024, 23/10/2024 & 11/03/2025, the assessee miserably failed to comply the said notices & this indicates that the assessee is not willing to pursue the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the page Nos.44-45 of the Paper book & submitted that

ITA No.1620/Bang/2025 Renuka Shetty, Udupi Page 3 of 4 in fact the assessee had uploaded her detailed submissions along with the paper book on 09/05/2025 vide e-proceedings Response Acknowledgement No. 959949381090525 which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC before passing the Appellate Order which is a gross violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the interest of justice & equity.

4.

The ld. DR also fairly conceded that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as the submissions of the assessee dated 09/05/2025 were not considered by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions & perused the material available on Record. Undisputedly, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that despite availing multiple opportunities of hearing including dated 25/12/2020, 04/10/2024, 23/10/2024 & 11/03/2025, the assessee miserably failed to comply the said notices. However, we take note of the fact that the assessee had uploaded her detailed submissions along with the paper book on 09/05/2025 vide e-proceedings Response Acknowledgement No. 959949381090525 which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC before passing the Appellate Order. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity & fair play and as requested by the ld. AR of the assessee, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Appellate proceedings & file her submissions along with the evidences in order to substantiate her claim. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.1620/Bang/2025 Renuka Shetty, Udupi Page 4 of 4

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th Sept, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Balakrishnan S.) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 7th Sept, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →