ADIKARNATAKA MUNIVENKATAPPA SURESH RAJ(HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1990/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 375-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical reasons. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared Nil income but later claimed agricultural income from various trees and sale of capsicum. The AO found insufficient evidence and made an addition of Rs. 91,41,000/- as unexplained income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned due to medical reasons and whether the case should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT

For Respondent: Shri. Manikandan S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 11.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND SHRISOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1990/Bang/2025 Assessment Year :2017-18 Shri. AdikarnatakaMunivenkatappa Suresh Vs. ITO, Raj (HUF), Ward – 4(2)(1), 181, Mear SMS Arcade, Koneka Agrahara, Bangalore. 5th Cross, Bangalore-560017, Karnataka. PAN :AANHA1895 A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assesseeby : None Revenue by : Shri. Manikandan S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2026 O R D E R Per Balakrishnan S, Accountant Member : This appeal isfiled by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals (NFAC, Delhi) [in short “CIT(A)”] vide DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065437438(1) dated 06.06.2024, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of the order passed under section 154of the Act dated 09.11.2022.

2.

Brief facts of the case are assesseee-filed his return of income on 24.10.2017 declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine the large agricultural income declared

ITA No.1990/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3

by the assessee. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued totheassessee on 09.08.2018. Thereafter, noticeunder section 142(1) of the Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued and served on the assessee calling for details. In response to the notice, assessee filed details of land survey number wise claiming the existence of mango, coconut, sapota, neelgiri trees from which agricultural income was claimed to have derived. The assessee also submitted details related to sale of capsicum for a sale consideration of Rs.62,47,431/-. The learned AO found that the agricultural income is not supported by sufficient and necessary evidence and therefore made an addition of Rs.91,41,000/- as unexplained income.

3.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) provided 4 opportunities to the assessee to submit his response. The assessee failed to submit any reply to the notice issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us with a delay of 375 days. In support of the application for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted hat the assessee was under medical treatment related to renal transplant and kidney related problems. The learned Authorized Representative [in short „the AR‟] therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned and the issue may be remanded back to the learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

5.

The learnedDepartmental Representative [in short „DR‟]did not object to the condonation of delay.

ITA No.1990/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3

6.

We have heard rival contentions and we find that there is sufficient cause to the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal due to medical reasons as detailed in the petition for condonation of delay. We therefore condone the delay of 375 days and remand the issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) to consider the submissions made by the assessee after providing an opportunity of being heard. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

SSd/- Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (BALAKRISHNAN S) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore. Dated:11.06.2026. /NS/*

Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →