NAJUMUNISA BASHEER,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 263/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 July 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit the entire issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed for non-compliance and failure to substantiate claims. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the non-compliance due to personal reasons.

What were the issues?

Validity of assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C without proper DIN generation and incriminating material. Whether additions made to sale consideration and disallowance of deduction under Section 54 were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 143(3),Section 54,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA. Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R
Hearing: 03.06.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. PR.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru dated 24.11.2025 vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082943125(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:-

1.

That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

Grounds on validity of the assessment

ITA No.263/Bang/2026 Najumunisa Basheer, Bengaluru Page 2 of 6 2.1.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not generatingthe DIN on the notice issued U/s 153C of the Act before the prescribed time allowed by the CBDT thereby the notice become invalid

2.2.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment based on the invalid notice. 2.3.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice u/s 153C of the Act on the bare satisfaction of the other assessing officer. 2.4.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment u/s 153C though no documents which are incriminating in nature were found in the search proceedings of Shri Mohammed Mansoor Khan. 2.5.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that the Sale Deed dated October 04, 2016 belongs to the appellant. 2.6.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in passing the order U/s 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act without generation of DIN or not obtaining the prior written approval from the competent authority before passing the order without DIN.

3.

Grounds on additions made in the assessment

3.1.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the sale consideration without giving any incriminating documents which pertain or relate to the appellant. 3.2.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition based on the information received from the other assessing officer without providing the details sought by the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice. 3.3.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.4,95,000/- under the head income from other sources. 3.4.That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in disallowing the deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 13,46,968/-. 3.5.Without prejudice to the above that the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not allowing the deduction u/s 54 to the extent of Rs.1,93,44,181/- as against Rs.1,09,43,290/- from the long term capital gain determined in the assessment. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant herein craves leave of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

ITA No.263/Bang/2026 Najumunisa Basheer, Bengaluru Page 3 of 6 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. for the assessee drew our attention on the order of the ld. PCIT(A) and vehemently submitted that the ld. PCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground that the assessee could not represent his case & failed to substantiate the claims despite being offered numerous opportunities through hearing notices. The ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention on an Affidavit dated 29/01/2026 sworn before the notary public stating the reason for non compliances which is reproduce below for ease of reference & convenience:-

ITA No.263/Bang/2026 Najumunisa Basheer, Bengaluru Page 4 of 6

ITA No.263/Bang/2026 Najumunisa Basheer, Bengaluru Page 5 of 6

4.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below, however, did not seriously oppose if the entire issues in dispute is remitted back to the file of ld. PCIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

5.

We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on record along with the affidavit dated 29/01/2026 filed by the assessee stating the reasons for the non compliances before the PCIT(A)-11, Bengaluru. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee undertakes to submit the explanation along with all the supporting evidences, documents & records if the case is remitted to the file of the ld. PCIT(A). 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 issues in dispute to the file of ld. PCIT(A)-11, Bengaluru for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

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

ITA No.263/Bang/2026 Najumunisa Basheer, Bengaluru Page 6 of 6

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 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →