NILANGSU MITRA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(3), BANGALORE
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2020-21. Proceedings under Section 148A were initiated due to discrepancies in Form 26AS and Insight data. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,74,958/- as undisclosed salary income from Grid Infocom Pvt. Ltd.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that under Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, salary due is taxable, not just salary received. Since both the assessee's claim of non-receipt and the employer's reporting of salary due required verification, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the disputed salary amount of Rs. 2,74,958/- was taxable in the assessee's hands, considering the conflicting claims of receipt versus due amount.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 15,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 133(6),Section 151,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT
This appeal by the assessee, Mr. Nilangsu Mitra, for A.Y. 2020-21, is directed against the order dated 07-01-2026 of the learned CIT(A), whereby the assessee’s appeal against the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer was dismissed.
The assessee did not file his return for A.Y. 2020-21 under section 139. His case was flagged on the Insight Portal under “RMS—Non-filing of return— PAN cases”. Pursuant to Insight Instruction No. 71 dated 16-11-2023 and based on risk profiling, proceedings under sections 148/148A were initiated. As Form 26AS and Insight data reflected transactions du
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 15
- Vinod Kumar Goenka, Mumbai vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 5189/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Kusum Deep, Roorkee vs Income Tax Officer, RoorkeeITA 270/DDN/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2024-25
- Kushal Narendra Desai, Mumbai vs DCIT, CC6(1), MumbaiITA 5231/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Jul 2026AY 2017-18
- Kapil Gupta, Delhi vs ITO, Ward-70(1), New Delhi, DelhiITA 1543/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma, Makarpura vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), VadodaraITA 1821/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. S.G. Fab vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 6 Oct 2026
- Meghnath Kapri vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Meghnath Kapri vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Nithil Agarwal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 6 Oct 2026
- Navneet Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary, Government Of JharkhandJharkhand · 6 Oct 2026