SRUJANA PADMA,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 714/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding valid explanations for the delay. The issue was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization. The AO treated Rs. 5,00,000/- received as SBN towards loan discharge as unexplained money. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 73 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable. Whether the cash deposits made during demonetization were unexplained money.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 154,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

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: Ms. Tarini N.V, Advocate, 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. 714/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Smt. Srujana Padma, No. 9, Rajathadri Nilaya, The Income Tax Hegganahalli Main Road, Officer, Sunkadakatte, Ward – 2(1)(3), Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 091. Vs. PAN: AHOPB9653K APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Ms. Tarini N.V, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for Dept.

Date of Hearing : 28-04-2026 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 12/01/2026 in respect of A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for examining the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The

Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 714/Bang/2026 assessee filed her responses to the notices issued u/s. 142(1). The assessee had given the reasons for the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The AO had partly accepted the contention and not accepted the deposits made during the demonetization period in SBN. The reason given by the AO is that the assessee is not authorized to receive SBN after 09/11/2016. Therefore, the AO had treated the SBN receipts of Rs. 5,00,000/- received from M/s. Rangaswamappa and Sons towards the discharge of their loan as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

3.

As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 73 days. In the delay condonation application, the assessee submitted that as against the assessment order, the assessee had filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act and after the said application was rejected by the authority, the present appeal has been filed and therefore prayed to condone the said delay. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the reasons and dismissed the appeal.

4.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the reasons given in the delay condonation application which is a fact and therefore prayed to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

6.

The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7.

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

8.

We have considered the application filed by the assessee for condoning the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee instead of filing an appeal, had filed an application u/s. 154 of the

Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 714/Bang/2026 Act to rectify the assessment order which was rejected on 22/01/2020. Thereafter the assessee had took steps to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The pendency of the 154 application increased the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee on receipt of the rejection order had made arrangements for filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) which took some time. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has valid explanations for filing the appeal with a delay of 73 days. We therefore, condone the said delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with law without raising the limitation.

9.

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 /

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →