AREHALLI RUDRAPPA VISHWANATHA,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HASSAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2692/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) should decide the penalty issue on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file his return of income and did not respond to notices regarding cash deposits. Consequently, an ex-parte assessment was made, and a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 173 days in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was on sufficient cause and whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Srikrishna, CA, Shri Balusamy N – JCIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2692/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17

Shri Arehalli Rudrappa Vishwanatha, The Income Tax Officer, Arehally, Temple Belur, Ward – 1 & TPS, Vs. Hassan, Karnataka – 573 115. Hassan. PAN: AOTPV1192F APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Srikrishna, CA : Shri Balusamy N – JCIT Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 24-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18-05-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 2692/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17 is filed by Shri Arehalli Rudrappa Vishwanatha against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) on 16.09.2025 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24.06.2024 by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (the Ld. Assessing Officer) levying penalty of Rs. 19,12,586/- was dismissed by not condoning the delay of 176 days in filing Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us.

2.

The brief fact of the case shows that the Assessee is an individual who did not file his return of income but as per information has deposited cash of Rs. 54,62,600,/- in saving bank account no. 1301 of Karnataka Bank Limited and

ITA No. 2692/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 therefore his case was reopened. The notices were issued and the Assessee was asked to explain the same. As the Assessee failed to explain the same, the Verification Unit was entrusted, which was also not responded to by the Assessee and therefore the addition was made by framing an Assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on ex-parte basis. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Assessee was issued notices, but no response was received and therefore the Ld. Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 19,12,586/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment being 100% of tax evaded by order dated 24.06.2024.

3.

The Assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order which was received by the Assessee as per form no. 35 on 24.06.2024. The Appeal was filed on 13.01.2025 thereby causing a delay of 173 days. At sl. no. 14 & 15of form no 35 , the Assessee stated that there is a delay due to unavoidable reasons and same may be condoned. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay holding that there is no sufficient cause for the reason that Assessee merely mentioned that delay is on account of unavoidable reasons. The Appeal of the Assessee was not admitted and hence dismissed.

4.

We have heard the contentions raised by Shri Srikrishna, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Balusamy N, JCIT on behalf of the Ld. Assessing Officer. It was explained to us that Assessee is residing in a rural area and does not have any idea about the Income Tax proceedings. The registered e-mail id also belongs to the Assessee’s friend and therefore no e-mail was infact reached the Assessee. when the show cause notice was issued, the Assessee reset the password, however, by that time, the reply tab was disabled as the time for filing reply was over. Further, before the Ld. CIT(A) while filing form no. 35, the Assessee was not aware that condonation petition is required to be attached for the reason that at sl. no. 15 only the text was required to be inserted. Therefore, it was the submission of the Assessee that Assessee did not get an opportunity to explain the delay in filing of the Appeal. It is also apparent that the e-mail id mentioned in form no. 35 was not belonging to the Assessee.

ITA No. 2692/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 5. In view of these facts, we restore the Appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Assessee to first put before The ld CIT (A) the petition for condonation of delay in causing 173 days delay with sufficient cause. The Ld. CIT(A) may consider the same and decide if the delay is caused on sufficient case, the same may be admitted and if that be so, then the issue may be decided on the merits of levy of penalty. We are also not aware about the fact whether the Assessee has preferred any Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) or not against the quantum addition which may also be ascertained and submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) by the Assessee. Needless to say a proper opportunity of hearing may be granted to the Assessee.

6.

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 18th May, 2026. *TNTS* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →