DHANESWARI DEVI POTSANGBAM,KORAMANGALA BANGALORE vs. WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 673/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee being a housewife with no email access. The case was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file her return of income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings for the sale of immovable property, but the assessee did not respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 117 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the reassessment proceedings were conducted properly without granting statutory deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Girish, CA, Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing

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

BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 673/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21

Smt. Dhaneswari Devi Potsangbam, The Income Tax No. 924, 6th B Main, Officer, 1st Block, Ward – 4(3)(2), Koramangala, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 034. Vs. PAN: CQOPP3522Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Girish, CA : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for Dept.

Date of Hearing : 27-04-2026 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 06/12/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2020-21.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed her return of income. The AO based on the information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 49,57,171/- had initiated proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148A(b) of

Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 673/Bang/2026 the Act. The assessee had not responded to the said notice and the AO had made an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued for which the assessee had not responded. The AO had issued a show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act proposing to tax the sale consideration as short term capital gains. No reply or details were furnished by the assessee and therefore the AO had confirmed his proposals by passing an order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

3.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 117 days. In the said application, the assessee had submitted that she is a housewife and she has no access to the email and therefore she was not able to participate in the assessment proceedings and also the delay has been occurred. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the said reason and not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

4.

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

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO had treated the entire sale consideration as short term capital gains without granting statutory deductions and therefore the order of the AO is bad in law. The Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee is a housewife and she has no knowledge to access the email and therefore all the notices were not brought to her knowledge and therefore the assessee has not filed the appeal in time and therefore prayed an opportunity to furnish the documents before the AO.

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that the reasons stated in the application is not a valid one and therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7.

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

Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 673/Bang/2026 8. We have considered the delay condonation application filed by the assessee in which it was averred that the assessee is a housewife and she has no knowledge to access the email ID and therefore she was not able to respond to the various notices issued by the AO and also not able to file the appeal in time before the Ld.CIT(A). This fact was not disputed by the revenue. We have also gone through the assessment order in which the entire sale consideration has been taken as a short term capital gains. But unfortunately, the assessee had not appeared before the AO and therefore the AO has no opportunity to make the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

9.

We therefore, inclined to condone the said delay of 117 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is also at liberty to produce the necessary documents before the AO at the time of making assessment.

10.

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

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

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

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

Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 673/Bang/2026 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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →