VIVEK SAMBAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2255/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 April 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding the defunct email ID. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the case was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file his return of income and respond to notices, leading to ex-parte assessment and appeal orders. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to an old, defunct email ID and sought an opportunity to present his case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present his case on merits despite significant delays and ex-parte orders, given the circumstances of non-receipt of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69C,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2255/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

Shri Vivek Sambaiah, A3, 1402, Elita Promenade, The Income Tax 101, 18th Main, 7th Phase, Officer, J P Nagar, Ward – 5(3)(4), Bangalore – 560 078. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: ALVPS7856C APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, CA

Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30-04-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 30/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

Based on the information that the assessee had earned salary income, the proceedings u/s. 147 was initiated by giving a notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee had not filed his return of income in spite of the receipt of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) was issued and no details were furnished by the assessee. Therefore the AO had

Page 2 of 5 ITA No. 2255/Bang/2025 served the notice through the designated verification unit. In spite of the service, the assessee had not responded and therefore the AO had proposed to complete the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. The AO after getting details from the employers by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act and form 16 furnished by M/s. TCS Ltd., the AO had treated the salary receipts and other receipts as income escaped from assessment. The AO had also made the additions on the income from salary and income from other sources apart from treating the payment to the customers as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. The assessee had challenged the said order made u/s. 144 before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had also issued five notices and also pointed out some deficiencies and the notices were served through the email ID of the assessee but the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal.

3.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 313 days. The assessee also enclosed an application for condonation of the said delay. In the said application, the assessee explained that the tax matters were looked after by his employer M/s. TCS Ltd. and therefore the assessee was under the belief that the HR department of the employer would take care of all the income tax issues and therefore on an erroneous view, the assessee had not filed his return of income. The assessee also submitted that all the notices were sent through the email ID of the assessee which is an old and defunct mail ID and therefore the assessee has no knowledge about the various notices issued by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee had also submitted that his new mail ID is Viveksamba@gmail.com but unfortunately the tax consultant also mentioned the old defunct mail ID of the assessee and therefore the assessee had not received the hearing notices from the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore prayed an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Only when the assessee had received a telephonic call from the Demand Facilitation Centre of the Department about the outstanding demands during the month of September 2025, the assessee contacted a

Page 3 of 5 ITA No. 2255/Bang/2025 new tax consultant and thereafter the appeal was made ready and the appeal was filed with a delay of 313 days. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanted and prayed to condone the said delay.

4.

We have considered the said submissions and the documents filed in support of the delay condonation application and we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal and we are therefore inclined to condone the said delay of 313 days in filing the appeal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that both the authorities had passed an ex-parte assessment order as well as the appeal order and therefore they have no opportunity to examine the issue on merits and prayed that an opportunity may be granted to appear before the AO.

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is totally non-cooperative with the department and therefore he is not entitled for any indulgence and prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

7.

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

8.

From the documents filed by the assessee, we came to know that the assessee had originally an email ID vivek_samba@hotmail.com which is an old and defunct email ID and therefore the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings. Only when the department had demanded the outstanding dues, the assessee came to know about the assessment order and thereafter through the tax consultant, the appeal has been filed before the Ld.CIT(A) but unfortunately the tax consultant again mentioned the old and defunct email ID of the assessee. Therefore the assessee had not received the hearing notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). If the assessee had received the hearing notices, he could have complied with the defects

Page 4 of 5 ITA No. 2255/Bang/2025 mentioned in the said notices and also could have appeared and filed the required documents to show that the additions made by the AO is not in order. Considering the fact that the assessment order is made u/s. 144 of the Act and also the appellate order was passed ex-parte and also considering the circumstances in which the assessee was not able to appear and represent his case before the authorities, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to appear before the AO on condition that the assessee had to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of cost to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund account within a period of 90 days from the date of this order. If the assessee had not complied with the payment of cost within the said period, the benefit granted in this order would not be available to the assessee and the orders of the lower authorities would revive automatically without any notice to this Tribunal. We, therefore set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit this issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and also after considering the various documents furnished by the assessee.

9.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 30th April, 2026. /MS /

Page 5 of 5 ITA No. 2255/Bang/2025 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →