HANDANAKERE SUBBAIAH NALINAKUMARI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2670/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the entire issue to the AO for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to produce necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident, failed to represent their case before the lower authorities. The assessee's representative requested one more opportunity before the AO for fair play and justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 69A and the levy of tax under Section 115BEE were justified, considering the assessee's non-resident status and lack of representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BEE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 04.06.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

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 23.09.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081050532(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.2670/Bang/2025 Handanakere Subbaiah Nalina Kumar, Bengaluru Page 2 of 3

1.

The Impugned Order is null and void and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned First Appellate Authority erred in not considering the explanations and submissions of the appellant in proper perspective. 3. Addition under sec.69A is not justified, when the appellant, admittedly, has not maintained books of account.

4.

Levy of tax under sec.115BEE at 60 percent is not justified, as the said rate is applicable for and from 01/04/2017. (Relying on WP(MD) No:2078/2020 dated 19/11/2024 and ITA No:1788/Del/2023 dated 04/04/2025. And for other reasons and grounds that may be adduced later, it is humbly prayed that this appeal may be admitted, adjudicated on merit and justice be rendered.

3.

Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee being a non resident could not represent his case before both the authorities below. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that one more opportunity may be granted before the AO in the interest of justice & fair play & also undertakes to file explanations along with the relevant documents/records/evidences in support of his claim if the case is remitted to the file of AO. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/records/evidences/ submissions as may be required by the AO for completion of the assessment. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

ITA No.2670/Bang/2025 Handanakere Subbaiah Nalina Kumar, Bengaluru Page 3 of 3

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 31st July, 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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →