GOUTHAM LALITHA DEVI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3051/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 June 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the appeal to be defective due to a significant delay, improper filing of Form No. 36, and the absence of a condonation petition. Consequently, the appeal could not be admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed cash deposits were from share sales, but failed to provide substantiating details like quantity, cost, and sale computation. The Assessing Officer treated the deposits as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable given the delay and defects in filing. Whether the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3051/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

Smt. Goutham Lalitha Devi, TheIncome Tax Officer, No. 245/1, R.T. Street, Ward – 2(2)(4), Chickpet, Bengaluru – 560 053. Vs. Bengaluru. PAN: ABHPD5411A APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: None Assessee by : Sri N. Balusamy – JCIT DR Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 30-04-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25-06-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal has been filed by Smt. Goutham Lalitha Devi [ The Assessee / Appellant] for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),[ The Ld. CIT A] dated 24 June 2025, arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,[ The ACT] on 28 December 2017 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Bengaluru. 2. The Registry has noted that the appeal is delayed by 115 days and that no petition for condonation of delay has been filed. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed her return of income [ ROI] declaring total income of ₹2,49,030. The case was selected for scrutiny to examine cash deposits. Notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.

ITA No. 3051/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 During assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the cash deposits were sourced from the sale of physical shares held by her. In support, the assessee produced self-made vouchers containing only the names and signatures of certain persons. However, the details of the shares sold, including quantity, purchase cost, date of purchase, date of sale, and the computation of long-term or short-term capital gains, were not substantiated. Despite several opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish the required evidence. The Assessing Officer therefore treated the cash deposits of ₹50,00,000 as unexplained cash credits and determined the total income at ₹52,49,030 by order dated 28 December 2017. 4. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), several opportunities were granted, but the assessee did not appear; consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the assessment order was confirmed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 6. Form No. 36 mentions an incorrect date for the order appealed against. The order challenged before us was passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 24 June 2025; however, Form No. 36 records the date as 20 November 2025. No order dated 20 November 2025 is available on record. Further, the date of service of the appellate order has also not been stated. Based on the appellate order and Form No. 36, the Registry issued a defect memo on 25 December 2025, noting that the appeal was barred by limitation by 115 days and that certain columns in Form No. 36 had not been properly completed. Despite this, no response was filed either before the date of hearing or up to the date of this order. In these circumstances, we have no option but to return the Assessee’s appeal as defective. 7. However, the appeal is delayed by 115 days, Form No. 36 has not been properly filled, and no application explaining the delay or seeking condonation has been filed. In the absence of a proper condonation petition, the delay cannot be condoned at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the assessee to file an appropriate application for recall, along with a proper petition for condonation of

ITA No. 3051/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 delay and rectification of the defects noted by the Registry, if assessee wants to pursue this appeal. If such an application is filed, it shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 25th June, 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →