NINGAPPA BIRADAR,BIJAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, TPS, BIJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1029/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 June 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee likely did not receive the notices from the CIT(A) as they were not sent to the specified address. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not initially file a return, but later filed one after a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained agricultural income and chit fund receipts. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring proper service of notices, and whether the additions for agricultural income and chit fund receipts were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: CA : Sri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate –

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. :1029/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21

Ningappa Biradar 567 Kanakdas Layout, Vijayapura, ITO, Ward 1, TPS, Karnataka 586104 Vijayapura. Vs. PAN: ARSPB1760F APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sri. Lakhan Jaju, CA : Sri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Revenue by Standing Counsel for Revenue

Date of Hearing : 25-05-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22-06-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT 1. This appeal by Ningappa Biradar, the assessee, relates to Assessment Year 2020-21 and is directed against the appellate order dated 17 February 2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. By that order, the assessee’s appeal against the reassessment order dated 24 January 2024, passed under sections 147 read with 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, was dismissed.

2.

The assessee has raised two main grounds of appeal against the additions. He contends that agricultural income earned by him of Rs 193500/- was treated as unexplained cash credit, and that the receipt of ₹ 2,10,000 from a chit fund, received on winning the bid, was also treated as unexplained despite his participation in the chit fund.

3.

Briefly, the assessee is an individual who did not originally file a return of income. Information available with the Assessing Officer showed cash deposits of ₹ 81,97,560

Page 1 of 4

ITA No.:1029/Bang/2026

in the assessee’s bank account with Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, along with other transactions. Notices were issued, but the assessee did not comply, and no return was filed in response. The Assessing Officer therefore formed the view that income of ₹ 96,22,563 had escaped assessment and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 23 January 2024. The assessee thereafter filed a return declaring total income of ₹ 4,36,650. Subsequent notices under sections 143(2), 142(1) and 144 were issued. Later, in response to a speed post notice, the assessee submitted a reply on 4 November 2024, along with copies ofbills, bank statements, computation of income, panchayat bills, encumbrance certificate and other supporting documents, and offered explanations on the issues raised by the Assessing Officer.

4.

The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had cash deposits of ₹ 1,93,500, for which the source was not satisfactorily explained, and treated the amount as unexplained in the assessee’s hands. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee claimed to have received ₹ 2,10,000 during the year but did not produce documentary evidence in support of the claim. This amount was also treated as unexplained. Accordingly, additions were made and the net taxable income was determined at ₹ 8,40,150, as against the returned income of ₹ 4,36,650 filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the assessment order before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), by order dated 17 February 2026, observed that five noticeshad been issued during the appellate proceedings, but the assessee did not respond to any of them. He therefore held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and also proceeded to decide the matter on merits.

6.

Before us, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that, in paragraph 17 of Form No. 35 filed before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had specifically requested that notices be sent to the address mentioned therein. Referring to the assessment order and the appellate order, he submitted that although paragraph 6 of the appellate order records issuance of five notices, none of them appear to have been sent to the address stated in paragraph 17 of Form No. 35.

7.

On perusal of Form No. 35, we find that the assessee had specified the address for service of notices. In the absence of any contrary material from the Revenue, it appears

Page 2 of 4

ITA No.:1029/Bang/2026

that the assessee did not receive the notices issued for hearing of the appeal. It is also evident from the assessment proceedings that although the assessee did not respond tonotices sent by email, he promptly responded and submitted the required details when notices were served by speed post. This fact was available from the assessment order itself. Despite this, the learned CIT(A) continued to issue notices by email, even though the assessee had stated in paragraph 17 of Form No. 35 that notices should be served at the specified address.

8.

We therefore restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A). The assessee shall substantiate the claim that ₹ 1,93,500 represents agricultural income by producing evidence regarding agricultural landholding, crops grown and produce sold. The assessee shall also substantiate the claim that ₹ 2,10,000 was received from Sangameshwar Chits Private Limited, as stated in the grounds of appeal. The onus shall be on the assessee to show that these amounts are not chargeable to tax under section 69 of the Act, as held by the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) shall examine the evidence and decide the issue in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, if so desired. Accordingly, grounds 2 and 3 are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.

9.

Grounds 1 and 4 to 7 are general and supportive in nature and are therefore dismissed.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2026

Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 22nd June, 2026. *VM*

Page 3 of 4

ITA No.:1029/Bang/2026

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A)

By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →