BHADRAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA KULKARNI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1872/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 July 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and had not considered the merits of the case. The assessee claimed they missed notices sent via the portal.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file their return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 148 due to property sales and cash deposits. The assessee failed to respond to notices from the AO and the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte assessment order, passed due to non-response to notices, should be set aside to allow the assessee to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & 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 18/06/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income. The case of the assessee was taken up for action u/s. 148 of the Act since the assessee had made several sales transactions of immovable property as well as cash deposits. Notice u/s. 148 was issued. Thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) was issued but the assessee had not 1

ITA No. 1872/BANG/2025 BHADRAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA KULKARNI

responded to any of the notices. The AO had also issued notice u/s. 133(6) to the parties involved in the sale transactions but except the one party, the other parties had not responded to the said notice. The AO, therefore treated the said as short term capital gains and also treated the cash deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs as income u/s. 69A of the Act.

3.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had issued four hearing notices but the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore the AO had concluded that the assessment made u/s. 147 is in order and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not viewed the notices issued through the portal and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and prayed that an opportunity may be granted to appear before the AO and substantiate his case.

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had neither appeared before the AO nor before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore prayed that no leniency could be shown on assessee. The Ld.DR further submitted that if the assessment has not been reopened u/s. 147, the entire income would be escaped and therefore prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

7.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8.

Admittedly, the assessment order made u/s. 147 of the Act is an ex-parte order and also the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and therefore the authorities had no occasion to consider the issue on merits. Further, it is the case of the assessee that he has not viewed the portal and therefore he was not able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee now submitted that he is having all the details to show that the additions are not in accordance with the facts.

9.

Considering the above said facts and also about the non-consideration of the issue on merits by the authorities below, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the AO. We are also inclined to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be payable 2

ITA No. 1872/BANG/2025 BHADRAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA KULKARNI

to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and direct the assessee to pay the cost within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the AO while making the assessment afresh.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- WASEEM AHMED SOUNDARARAJAN K. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Bangalore, Dated: 21st July, 2026.

Copy to: BHADRAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA KULKARNI, NO. 131, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, 1 MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR WEST OF CHORD ROAD,, BENGALURU-560044, KARNATAKA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH 2 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

BY ORDER

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →