MUNISWAMY SHARADA,BENGALURU vs. ITO - 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 869/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 July 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 438 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the demise of her father, who managed all financial and tax matters, and her subsequent lack of awareness. The ITAT considered the explanation for the delay and the need for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the reassessment proceedings and additions made by the AO warrant fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Jigar Suba, A.R
Hearing: 25.05.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

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 26.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084087045(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

The Appellant, most respectfully, submits the following grounds of appeal against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

ITA No.869/Bang/2026 MuniswamySharada, Bengaluru Page 2 of 6 tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”): 1. Condonation of Delay by Ld. CIT(A): In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the Appellant’s application for condonation of delay of 438 days in filing the appeal before it and in dismissing the appeal in limine without admitting the same and adjudicating the same on merits, without appreciating the fact that: a. Sufficient and reasonable cause existed for the delay and the appeal involved substantial questions of law and fact warranting adjudication on merits in the interest of substantial justice. b. The banking operations, financial affairs and tax-related matters were exclusively managed by her late father, who passed away on 23.11.2017. The reassessment proceedings were initiated much later (notices issued in 2023), and the Appellant, being completely unaware of the same due to the long-standing family arrangement that ceased with the demise of her father, could not respond or file the appeal within the prescribed time. The delay was purely unintentional, occasioned by genuine hardship and lack of knowledge, and not due to any negligence, inaction or mala fide on the part of the Appellant. c. The Appellant had made prompt efforts to hire a professional, but the said person stopped responding to the Appellant’s calls and thereafter was untraceable. This led to further inordinate delay as seeking another professional to handle the matter took time. d. The Appellant had specifically pleaded merits of the appeal in the condonation application itself. No prejudice whatsoever is caused to the Revenue by condonation of delay, whereas refusal thereof would cause irreparable injury to the Appellant by depriving her of a statutory right of appeal on merits. e. The refusal to condone the delay and consequent dismissal of the appeal in limine without adjudication on merits constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audialterampartem (right to be heard), as the Appellant has been effectively denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to present her case, submit evidence, and contest the assessment on substantive grounds, despite demonstrating genuine hardship and sufficient cause for the delay. Such a mechanical and hyper- technical rejection undermines the foundational tenets of procedural fairness enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, leading to arbitrary tax administration and miscarriage of justice. Appellate authorities must afford an opportunity of hearing before dismissing appeals on procedural grounds where sufficient cause is shown.

ITA No.869/Bang/2026 MuniswamySharada, Bengaluru Page 3 of 6 Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, and alternatively:

2.

Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147: The reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 are void ab initio for noncompliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the faceless scheme which are mentioned as under: a. Non-conducting / non-documenting of enquiry u/s 148A(a); b. Notices and orders issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer; c. Failure to provide copy of sanction u/s 151; d. Non-speaking order u/s 148A(d); e. Notice u/s 148 lacking prescribed particulars; f. Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) before completing the assessment. g. Service of all notices / orders was invalid, having been effected at an email address (anushab807@gmail.com) and physical address not belonging to / not regularly used by the Appellant, resulting in complete denial of opportunity of being heard. 3. Alleged unexplained credits u/s 69A: The addition of Rs. 3,32,93,013/- u/s 69A treating total bank credits as unexplained is arbitrary, unsustainable and liable to be deleted for the following reasons, inter alia: a. The Ld. AO ignored legitimate sources such as inter-bank transfers, FD maturity proceeds, etc.; b. The figure of Rs. 3,32,93,013/- includes bank interest of Rs. 91,848/- already to be taxed separately under “Income from Other Sources”, leading to duplication; c. The addition was enhanced at the show-cause notice stage u/s 144 without granting adequate opportunity; d. No copy of information received u/s 133(6) was provided to the Appellant. 4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A & 234B and initiating penalty proceedings when the assessment itself is unsustainable.

ITA No.869/Bang/2026 MuniswamySharada, Bengaluru Page 4 of 6 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute or delete any of the above grounds or to raise additional grounds before or at the time of hearing.

RELIEF PRAYED

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

1) Condone the delay, if any, in filing the present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal; 2) Set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC; and remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, after providing the Appellant adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and of filing necessary evidence / explanations (including on the source of credits and the factual position regarding bank accounts and service of notices). In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above: 3) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly adjudicate the appeal on merits itself and allow the same by quashing the reassessment proceedings / deleting the additions made by the Ld. AO.

4) The Appellant also prays for grant of such other relief(s) as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

GENERAL

• The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. • This appeal is filed on time and may please be admitted in full.

3.

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without admitting by not condoning the delay of 438 days. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assesse also drew our attention on a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC placed at page no.34-35 of the paper book and vehemently submitted that the assessee’s father being a senior citizen was exclusively handling all his banking operations, financial affairs as well as income tax related matters who expired

ITA No.869/Bang/2026 MuniswamySharada, Bengaluru Page 5 of 6 on 23.11.2017 and therefore, the assessee was completely unaware of the notices issued as well as passing of the assessment order. It is also submitted that the delay was occasioned by genuine hardship and lack of knowledge and not due to any negligence, inaction or malafide on the part of the assessee and accordingly prayed that delay of 438 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may be condoned.

4.

Having heard the rival submissions, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

5.

Now having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also observed that the assessee also could not represent his case before the AO due to aforesaid reasons and accordingly the AO has passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act to the best of his judgment and added the entire cash deposits into the bank account amounting to Rs.3,32,93,013/- as undisclosed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Further, the AO has also added interest of Rs.91,848/- received from Bank of India as income from other sources and thus assessed on a total income of Rs.3,33,84,861/-. 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 and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO 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 submit documents/records/information/accounts in order to substantiate his claim. We make it clear that in case of further default, the

ITA No.869/Bang/2026 MuniswamySharada, Bengaluru Page 6 of 6 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 30th July, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 30th 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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →