What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to remit the entire issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. A token cost was imposed on the assessee for their negligence in responding to notices.

The assessee failed to represent their case before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A)/NFAC, despite multiple notices. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent their case before the AO due to prior non-compliance. The appropriateness of imposing a cost for continuous negligence.

Kyathanahally Shivaramu… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2026

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 24.03.2026Pronounced: 19.06.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC both dated 9.9.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080492084(1) for the assessment year 2023-24 & vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080770090 (1) for the assessment year 2022-23 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common in nature, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA Nos.151 & 152/Bang/2026 Kyathanahally Shivaramu Navinayaka, Mandya Page 2 of 5

In ITA No. 151/Bang/2026, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA Nos.151 & 152/Bang/2026 Kyathanahally Shivaramu Navinayaka, Mandya Page 3 of 5 3. In ITA No. 152/Bang/2026, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA Nos.151 & 152/Bang/2026 Kyathanahally Shivaramu Navinayaka, Mandya Page 4 of 5 4. In both these appeals, it was drawn to our notice by the ld. A.R. of the assessee that the assessee could not represent his case before both the Authorities below and accordingly prayed that in the interest of justice & equity, one more opportunity may be granted before the AO to represent the case. On perusal of the Assessment Order dated 21/02/2025 for the AY 2023-24, we observed that the assessee except part compliance to show cause notice dated 31/12/2024 did not responded to any of the notices at all. Further, on perusal of the Assessment Order dated 27/02/2025 for the AY 2022-23, we observed that the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the AO.

4.1 We also observed that even before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for both these assessment years, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices despite three numbers of notices issued by the First Appellate Authority.

Before us, the ld. D.R. although fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before both the Authorities below and he has no objection if the case is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration provided some cost may be levied for the continuous negligence shown by the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Undisputedly, the assessee could not represent his case before both the Authorities below despite being offered numerous opportunities. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issues in dispute in both these appeals to the file of AO to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also

ITA Nos.151 & 152/Bang/2026 Kyathanahally Shivaramu Navinayaka, Mandya Page 5 of 5 directed to produce all the relevant documents/information/ evidences/accounts in support of his claim or as directed by the AO.

6.1 Further, while remitting the matter to the file of AO, we also consider it necessary to impose a token cost of Rs.20,000/- [Rs.10,000/- each for AY 2023-24 & AY 2022-23 ] to the assessee in owing to the continued negligence shown to the statutory notices at both the levels. The assessee shall deposit the cost warranted in favour of the Prime Minister Relief Fund and the receipt thereof shall be furnished before the AO. With these terms the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 19th June, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

KYATHANAHALLY SHIVARAMU NAVINAYAKA,MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDYA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments