HEBSIBA DANIEL,BANGALORE KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE KARNATAKA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1792/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 June 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to hospitalization. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file her return of income. The AO initiated assessment proceedings under Section 148 based on information about foreign currency purchases and remittances. The assessee later filed a return and submissions, but the AO treated foreign currency purchase as unexplained expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained due to hospitalization, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69C,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Sam Moncy, Advocate, Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing

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

BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 1792/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-20

Smt. Hebsiba Daniel, 1/63/1 Bethesda, Happy Garden La, The Income Tax Sweetan Main Road, Officer, Ramamur Nagar, Ward – 4(1)(1), Kalkere Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 016. PAN: AIUPD0564G APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Sam Moncy, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for the Dept. Date of Hearing : 10-06-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23-06-2026 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/02/2026 in respect of the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed her return of income. Based on the information that the assessee had purchased foreign currency and also made foreign remittance and also received salary from International Justice Mission, the AO had alleged that income has escaped from assessment and notice u/s. 148 was issued.

Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 1792/Bang/2026 Thereafter the assessee filed her return of income. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. The assessee filed their submissions along with documents. The AO thereafter issued 143(2) and show cause notice but the assessee had not responded to the said notices and therefore the AO had concluded that no documents are made available to support the contention that her husband gifted the amount of Rs. 23,12,000/-. Similarly, the AO had treated the purchase of foreign currency as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act since the source was not furnished.

3.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was doing her MBA in Canada University for which she received cash from her husband and parents which were utilized for making the foreign remittance towards the tuition fees and for expenses. The assessee also enclosed the supporting documents to show that there is no escapement of any income. The appeal was filed with a delay of 38 days and the assessee also stated that because of the hospitalization, the appeal could not be filed in time. The Ld.CIT(A) not satisfied with the reasons had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

4.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the delay happened because of the hospitalization of the assessee and also submitted that the delay is only a minimal one and by considering the issue, the said delay ought to have been condoned by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed to condone the delay and remit the issue to decide the appeal on merits. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the Medical Certificate and other documents.

6.

The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 1792/Bang/2026 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8.

We have perused the Medical Certificate and other documents filed in the paper book by way of supporting documents. From the Medical Certificate, it is a fact that the assessee was hospitalized and therefore we cannot reject the contention in toto. We have also considered the documents filed before us as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). All the documents were not considered by the Ld.CIT(A) since the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

9.

Considering the facts, we are satisfied that the assessee is having sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) in time. Therefore we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration of the appeal on merits.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 23rd June, 2026. /MS /

Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 1792/Bang/2026 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →