KANKARA HARSHA REDDY,DAVANGERE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 3027/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2026AY 2018-194 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order as mandated by Section 250(6) and that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to the demise of the consultant. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite notices, leading to the confirmation of the AO's order. The assessee's AR submitted that the tax consultant passed away, and the CIT(A) did not consider the detailed submissions made.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's submissions and passed a reasoned order. Whether there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance with appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekhar, AR

For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 26.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.3027 & 3028/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Kankara Harsha Reddy, The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. No.1814, 14, Ist Main, 9th Cross, Income Tax, Vidyanagar, Shyamanur B.O,. Central Circle – 1(4), Davangere – 577 004. Bangalore. PAN – ABUPH 1199 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri R Chandrashekhar, AR Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the combined orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), both dated 09.10.2025, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 and 2019-20. We first proceed to adjudicate the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 3027/Bang/2025 for AY 2018-19.

ITA No.3027 & 3028/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4

At the outset, it was noticed that the ld. CIT(A) had issued several notices granting the assessee opportunities to raise contentions against the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) appearing before us fairly admitted that the assessee could not appear during the appellate proceedings. However, the assessee had made detailed submissions in the Statement of Facts filed before the ld. CIT(A), which were not duly considered in the impugned order. According to the ld. AR, the Statement of Facts was exhaustive in assailing the assessment order, but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the same.

3.1 The ld. AR further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, in an identical matter relating to the father of the assessee in ITA Nos. 2992 to 2994/Bang/2025 and 3029/Bang/2025 vide order dated 20.05.2026, had restored the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

3.2 The ld. AR also submitted that during the pendency of the appeal proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant passed away. In support of this contention, the ld. AR filed the death certificate of the erstwhile consultant. In view of these facts, the ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to represent the case before the ld. CIT(A) and undertook to ensure necessary compliance in future proceedings.

ITA No.3027 & 3028/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR), considering the submissions made by the ld. AR, raised no objection to restoring the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion, we note that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO without considering the elaborate Statement of Facts filed by the assessee. The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act mandate that the ld. CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the materials available on record. However, in the present case, despite the Statement of Facts having been filed by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order merely on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish replies despite sufficient opportunities having been granted. In our considered view, the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act has not been properly complied with by the ld. CIT(A).

5.1 Further, we find that there existed sufficient cause preventing the assessee from complying with the appellate proceedings, namely, the demise of the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultant. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, the assessee is directed to ensure due compliance before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.3027 & 3028/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. We now take up ITA No. 3028/Bang/2025 for AY 2019-20.

The facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to those considered in ITA No. 3027/Bang/2025 discussed hereinabove. Therefore, following our findings rendered therein, this appeal is also restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3028/Bang/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 26th day of May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 26th May, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →