GANGANALLY MALLAPPA BASAVARAJU,KADUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, , HASSAN

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its original return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 admitting a total income of Rs.37,32,660/-. Thereafter, the case was taken up for e-verification and accordingly notices under section 133(6) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2022, 24.12.2022 and 10.01.2023. The learned AO noticed that there was mismatch in the income from other sources as disclosed by the assessee in the ITR as well as contract receipts. Assessee failed to respond to any of the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act, but, however, he filed updated ITR under section 139(8A) of the Act on 31.03.2023 declaring an income of Rs.38,46,510/-. The learned AO observed that income has escaped assessment and thereafter proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act after obtaining statutory approval from the competent authorities and various notices under section 142(1), 144 of the Act were duly served. But the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices. The learned AO, on perusal of the information collected and information available in the insight portal vis-à-vis ITR filed by the assessee, noticed that assessee has not fully disclosed his income. Thereafter, he proceeded to make an addition of Rs.2,40,44,215/- as detailed in the Assessment Order.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 222 days. Assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and affidavit before the learned CIT(A). However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay and without adjudicating the case on merits.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us by raising various grounds annexed to Form 36. The assessee also filed additional grounds agitating JAO/FAO issue.

At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment and could not appear before the learned CIT(A) to furnish evidences supporting the grounds of appeal. He pleaded that intentional on the part of the assessee but due to medical reasons he could not to appear before the learned CIT(A) or before the learned AO. He therefore pleaded for one more opportunity before the learned AO and undertook to appear before the learned AO and furnish the requisite documentary evidences.

Per contra, the learned DR fully supported the orders of the Revenue authorities and submitted that assessee was non-compliant before the learned AO and before the learned CIT(A).

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the petition for condonation of delay and the affidavit furnished by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). On perusal of the affidavit and the petition, we noticed that the assessee due to medical reasons could not appear before the Revenue authorities to file documentary evidences supporting the claim made in the return of income. However, we also notice that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine and has not adjudicated the case on merits as per section 250(6) of the Act. In these circumstances, we are

Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The additional grounds were not argued and hence not admitted for adjudication.

With respect to appeal in ITA No.312/Bang/2026 arising out of the penalty order passed under section 270A of the Act, we find that since the quantum appeal is remanded back to the file of the learned AO for de-novo assessment, the penalty order does not have legs to stand and does not survive. Thus, the grounds raised in the penalty appeal are disposed off.

In the result, appeal in ITA No.311/Bang/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal in ITA No.312/Bang/2026 is dismissed.