PAVAN KUMAR RAMASWAMY CHEELAGONDANAHALLI,BANGLORE, KARNATKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BNAGLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2583/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to notices going to the spam folder. The case was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to furnish documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about property sale, salary income, and credit card payments. Notices were allegedly sent to the assessee's spam folder, leading to non-response and ex-parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to technical issues with email notices, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 69C,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Avneet Singh, Advocate &, Shri Pranav Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 2583/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Pavan Kumar Ramaswamy Cheelagondanahalli, The Income Tax S/o. Shri C R Ramaswamy, Officer, B-106, Devagiri Divine No. 3, Ward – 5(3)(1), 30th Main, Bangalore South, Bangalore. Vs. Karnataka – 560 085. PAN: AGCPC1679H APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Avneet Singh, Advocate & Shri Pranav Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 06-04-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 21-05-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 18/09/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file his return of income. The AO based on the information that the assessee had sold an immovable property had alleged that the income under the head Capital Gains were escaped from assessment. Similarly, the salary income and the credit card bills payments were also treated as income escaped from assessment. Notice u/s. 148A(b) was issued. The assessee

Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 2583/Bang/2025 had not responded and therefore an order u/s. 148A(d) was made and notice u/s. 148 was also issued to the assessee. The AO had also sent a notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the purchaser of the property and also to the employer of the assessee. The purchaser had furnished the details and the employer had also submitted the form -16 of the assessee. The AO based on the documents furnished by the purchaser had proposed to assess under the long term capital gains. The AO had also added salary income as income from salary and also the payments made to the credit card bills as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. The assessee had not responded to the said notice also and therefore he has confirmed his proposals by adding the long term capital gain, salary income and unexplained expenditure for paying the credit card bills. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 97 days. In the said delay condonation application, the assessee had submitted that the notices sent through the email has gone to the spam folder and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the said reasons and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.

3.

As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee was not able to appear before the AO since the various notices had gone to the spam folder and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the notices as well as the assessment order and therefore prayed to grant an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Insofar as the merits are concerned, the Ld.AR submitted that the estimation of income under the head long term capital gains, salary income and other expenditures incurred for paying the credit card bills are not warranted and therefore prayed to grant an opportunity to appear before the AO for producing the details. The Ld.AR submitted that if the delay has not been condoned and the appeal is not decided on merits, the assessee would be put into a disadvantageous position and therefore prayed to allow the appeal.

Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 2583/Bang/2025

5.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and also not approached the CIT(A) in time and therefore no leniency can be shown on the assessee.

6.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.

The reason adduced by the assessee is that all the hearing notices were sent to the spam folder of the assessee and therefore he has no knowledge about the assessment proceedings and therefore not appeared before the AO for assessment.

8.

Considering the said facts and also the assessment was made u/s. 144 of the Act, in order to render substantial justice, we are condoning the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We therefore, set aside the order of the authorities below and remit this issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration, in accordance with law. It is also open to the assessee to furnish the documents before the AO.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 21st May, 2026. /MS /

Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 2583/Bang/2025 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant 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 →