NANJARAJ SUSHMA,KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

ITA 2469/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 August 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's explanation regarding incorrect email communication. It was held that the AO's estimation of income was incorrect as no defects were pointed out in the audited books of accounts and the nature of the business does not guarantee uniform profits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a coffee trader, failed to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee claimed the delay in filing the appeal was due to hearing notices being sent to an incorrect email ID.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in estimating the income based on average net profit without defects in audited books of accounts. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to communication errors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 23/04/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and trading in coffee and filed her return of income on 16/11/2018. The return was selected under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued on several dates. The assessee had not responded to any of the notices a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →