What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the file of the Additional/Joint CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. A token cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the assessee for negligence.

The assessee failed to represent their case before the Additional/Joint CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. The assessee's AR requested another opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent their case before the first appellate authority after failing to do so previously.

Chakravarthy Yerraguntla Kalyana vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 08.04.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara dated 21.2.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1073547176(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.3021/Bang/2025 Chakravarthy Yerraguntla Kalayana, Bengaluru Page 2 of 6

ITA No.3021/Bang/2025 Chakravarthy Yerraguntla Kalayana, Bengaluru Page 3 of 6

ITA No.3021/Bang/2025 Chakravarthy Yerraguntla Kalayana, Bengaluru Page 4 of 6

Before us both the parties fairly conceded that assesse could not represent his case before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara and accordingly the ld. A.R. of the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). The ld. D.R. although fairly conceded that assessee could not represent his case before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), however, submitted that some cost may be levied owing to the negligence shown by the assessee before the first appellate authority.

ITA No.3021/Bang/2025 Chakravarthy Yerraguntla Kalayana, Bengaluru Page 5 of 6 3.1 On perusal of the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A), we observed that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) had provided 5 numbers of opportunities to the assessee to make his submission in support of the grounds of appeal, however, the assessee did not file any submissions/response before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law.

3.2 While remitting the matter to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A), we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.1,000/- to the assessee in aggregate owing to the negligence shown to the statutory notices before the first appellate authority. The assessee shall deposit the cost warranted in favour of Prime Minister Relief Fund and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A). With these terms, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant document/records/submissions/information in support of his claim. We make it clear that in case of further de+ fault, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 30th June, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.3021/Bang/2025 Chakravarthy Yerraguntla Kalayana, Bengaluru Page 6 of 6

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

CHAKRAVARTHY YERRAGUNTLA KALYANA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), BANGLAORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments