S A GADAGI,RON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, GADAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1629/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 August 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee filed a petition to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal after the Revenue had no objection.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for AY 2018-19. The assessee raised multiple grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings, additions made, and penalties levied.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings and subsequent additions. However, the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee before adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 270A,Section 271B,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 234F,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri S.A. Gadag Ron, A.R
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 24.12.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071529806 (1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - • The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is illegal baseless and opposed to the facts of the case. The order passed by learned AO is also illegal, baseless and opposed to the facts of the case. The learned AO has given only 5 days time while calling for the assessee to respond to the notice u/s 148A of income tax act. The notices of reassessment have been issued by jurisdictional assessing officer and assessment is done by NFAC which is illegal and Void ab intio. • That the AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate that all transactions in the said bank account were duly accounted for in the books of the

ITA No.1629/Bang/2025 S A Gadagi, Gadag Page 2 of 4 successor proprietors and were already subject to tax, as evidenced by audited financial statements and return of income filed under section 139(1). • The reassessment was initiated merely based on bank deposits without tangible material to believe escapement of income. Thus, reasons recorded under section 147, and proceedings under section 148, are invalid and unsustainable in law. • The addition of Rs.1,04,52,953/- as estimated business income @10% of total bank credits is arbitrary, excessive, and made without any relevance to books of accounts. • The CIT(A) ignored that even for A. Y. 2017-18 under similar facts, the assessment had been dropped, which amounts to inconsistent application of law and causes manifest injustice. • The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 without adjudicating the merits, legality, and validity of the assessment order and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. • The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment was completed in the name of a non-existent entity, i.e., the dissolved firm, which is void ab initio, relying on Supreme Court judgment in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. CIT (2019) 416 1TR 613 (SC). Therefore, the assessment should have been annulled in entirety. • The CIT(A) also erred in not deleting the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, despite there being no valid demand or determined income in hands of appellant firm. • The learned AO has erred in initiating Penal Proceedings u/s 270A, 271B, 272A(1)(d) and 234F of Income tax act. • The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or substitute any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

3.

At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention to a petition for withdrawal of appeal dated 26.05.2026, which is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience: -

ITA No.1629/Bang/2025 S A Gadagi, Gadag Page 3 of 4

4.

The ld. DR have no objection whatsoever if the Tribunal permits to withdraw the appeal as prayed by the assessee.

5.

Considering the application for withdrawal dated 26.05.2026 filed on 04.06.2026 and the request of ld. A.R. of the assessee, we permit the assessee to withdraw the appeal and accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

ITA No.1629/Bang/2025 S A Gadagi, Gadag Page 4 of 4

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

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

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 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →