SMT TARAMATI SHANTRAJ POL,HUBLI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) HUBLI, HUBLI

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – 2, Panaji [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2014-15.

(c) The learned Respondent has erred in law in insisting upon production of screenshots, helpdesk complaints, grievance tickets or proof of attempted electronic uploading, when such requirement was wholly irrelevant and extraneous in the appellant's case, since the appellant's appeal had already been accepted, admitted and acted upon in paper form. (d) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that issuance of hearing notice by a statutory appellate authority is not an administrative act but a judicial act which presupposes existence, validity and admission of an appeal, and once such hearing notices were issued by the office of the CIT(A), Hubli, the appeal stood conclusively admitted and therefore the successor CIT(A) had no authority in law to dismiss it as non-est or time- barred without first recalling or setting aside the earlier admission, which has not been done. 2. (a) Without prejudice to the above, the learned Respondent has failed to appreciate that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act amounting to Rs 8,13,350 are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and void ab initio, as the appellant is an individual deriving income from house property, capital gains and other sources, is not engaged in any business or profession, is not statutorily required to maintain books of account, and in fact has not maintained any books of account, which is a mandatory and sine qua non condition precedent for invoking section 68. (b) The learned Respondent and AO failed to appreciate that the impugned additions under section 68 have been made solely on the basis of entries appearing in the bank passbook maintained by the bank, which in law does not constitute "books of account of the assessee", as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, various High Courts and Tribunals, and therefore the very foundation for invoking section 68 collapses, rendering the additions unsustainable in law. The learned Respondent and AO failed to consider that section 68 can be invoked only when a sum is found credited in the books of the assessee maintained by her, and that in the absence of such books, the Assessing Officer lacks inherent jurisdiction to make any addition under that provision, irrespective of the adequacy or inadequacy of the explanation offered, and therefore the additions made towards alleged unexplained receipts, stamp duty collections and cash gift are liable to be deleted on this short legal ground alone. (c) Without prejudice, the learned AO erred in rejecting the explanations furnished by the appellant in respect of the impugned credits, including amounts received towards petty sales, temporary stamp duty and registration collections pertaining to the professional activities of the appellant's husband, and a gift received from a close relative, without bringing any adverse material on record to establish that the explanations were false or untenable. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanations on conjectures, surmises and hyper-technical grounds, without bringing any material on record to show that the explanations were false or untrue.

(d) The impugned order is therefore bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside in toto, both on the jurisdictional ground of illegal dismissal of a validly admitted appeal as time-barred and on the substantive ground that the additions made under section 68 are without authority of law. 4. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) on 05.12.2016, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 29,95,230/- after making certain additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed a physical appeal on 05.01.2017, i.e. within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order. The learned AR submitted that thereafter notices of hearing were issued on 22.02.2018, 24.04.2018 and 30.05.2018 by the learned CIT(A). It was further submitted that the assessee filed an online appeal on 02.10.2018. However, the learned CIT(A), without taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had already filed the physical appeal on 05.01.2017, pursuant to which appellate proceedings were also initiated, proceeded to dismiss the online appeal filed by the assessee on 02.10.2018 on the ground of delay of 635 days. The assessee submitted that since its physical appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period, subsequent electronic uploading of the appeal in compliance with the procedural requirements cannot be equated with the delayed filing of the appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Department Representative 5. vehemently relied upon the order passed by the lower authorities.

From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned 6. CIT(A), without deciding the appeal filed by the assessee on merits, dismissed the same only on the basis that sufficient cause has not been shown by the assessee for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. If it is the plea of the assessee that the physical appeal against the assessment order was filed on 05.01.2017, i.e. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order and thereafter hearing notices were also issued by the learned CIT(A). However, thereafter, in compliance with the statutory requirements, the assessee uploaded the same appeal and e-filed the same on 02.10.2018. Thus, as per the assessee, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), as the appeal was physically filed and taken cognisance of by the learned CIT(A), and appellate proceedings also commenced. In support of its contention, the assessee has also placed on record a copy of Form 35 filed physically on 05.01.2017 and a copy of Form 35 which was e-filed on 02.10.2018.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the 7. materials available on record, it is evident that the assessee was diligent and interested in pursuing the litigation against the assessment order and therefore filed the appeal, though physically, before the learned CIT(A) within the limitation period and subsequently also uploaded the said appeal on 02.10.2018, as per the new e-filing procedure. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) cannot be considered as 5 having been filed belatedly, and thus must be considered on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the assessee’s appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for decision on merits after hearing the parties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical 8. purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-Aug-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 20-Aug-2026 *VM* Copy to: SMT TARAMATI SHANTRAJ POL, 145, SRINIDHI BAFNA LAYOUT, GUDHIHAL CROSS, KARWAR ROAD, 1 OLD HUBLI, HUBLI-DHARWAD-580024, KARNATAKA THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) HUBLI, 2 C R BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI, HUBLI-DHARWAD-580025, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH 5 GUARD FILE BY ORDER

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., BANGALORE