BHAGYASHREE C PATEL,RAJAJI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1533/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 August 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not rectified the defects despite several notices and had not appeared for the hearing. Consequently, the appeal could not be proceeded with.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16 was listed for hearing. The assessee failed to appear, and the appeal was found to be defective for multiple reasons, including unsigned documents and incorrect respondent details.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and non-appearance of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 18.06.2026Pronounced: 24.08.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 18.07.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066818101 (1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

ITA No.1533/Bang/2024 Bhagyashree C Patel, Bengaluru Page 2 of 4

Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each ground of appeal (see note below) 1 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of 0 ld. AO in initiating proceedings u/s 148 which is bad in law and bad on facts. 2 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining in making 4132800 the addition of Rs. 1,37,76,000/- on account of deposit under section 69A which is bad in law and bad on facts. 3 The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or 0 vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. Total Tax Effect Rs. 41,32,800

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

4.

On perusal of the Order sheet entry dated 27/08/2024, we observed that the Registry has stated that the appeal filed is not in order for the reasons stated below: - 1. Appeal not signed by assessee. 2. Respondent Name & Designation and Address in Respondent Personal information is wrongly filled in. 3. Form 36 and Grounds of Appeal before ITAT not signed by Assessee. 4. (EF) Respondent’s Name/ Designation in cause title not (correctly) filled. 5. (EF) Memorandum of appeal not (properly) signed/verified by the person authorized u/s 140 of the IT Act,1961. 6. (EF) Form-35 containing statement of facts & grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority not uploaded. 7. Uploaded Grounds of Appeal before ITAT is not signed by the Appellant.

ITA No.1533/Bang/2024 Bhagyashree C Patel, Bengaluru Page 3 of 4 5. We also observed that the assessee has not rectified the above defects yet despite the Registry has sent several notices for removal of defects as well as hearing notices communicated through the email address provided by the assessee in the Form No.36.

5.1 Further, as per the Direction of the bench to serve the notice through the ld. DR, the ld. ITO, ITAT-1, Bengaluru has submitted a letter dated 08/12/2025 stating that as verified by the ld. AO, Ward- 2(2)(2), Bengaluru, the assessee is residing at Khasra No. 261, Opp. Bagwanji Junwa Krishi Farm, Pal Bye Pass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342001 & hence the AO was unable to serve the notice physically. However, the notice has been forwarded to the e-mail address provided by the assessee in the ITR filed for the AY 2024-25 i.e. rajendrakumawat8@gmail.com. In spite of that the assessee has neither rectified the defects nor appeared before us for hearing of the case at all.

6.

In view of the above facts, in terms of Rule 4A(2)(iv) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this appeal cannot be proceeded with as intimated by registry due to non-removal of defects as pointed out and therefore, the appeal & applications required to be return to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th Aug, 2026

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

Bangalore, Dated 24th Aug, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.1533/Bang/2024 Bhagyashree C Patel, Bengaluru Page 4 of 4

Copy to:

1.

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

Asst. 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 →