CHANDRA SHEKAR NERELLA,JANATA COLONY ,GADAG ROAD HUBLI DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI, KARNATAKA

ITA 1228/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Chandra Shekar Nerella, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 20.01.2026 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee's grounds of appeal raised issues concerning jurisdiction, principles of natural justice, dismissal for non-prosecution, additions under Section 69A, failure to obtain information under Section 133(6), doubting the nature of unsecured loans, double taxation, non-maintenance of details, credit for self-assessment tax, invocation of Section 115BBE, initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1), demand notice under Section 156, and levy of interest under Section 234AB. The assessee also submitted a petition for admission of additional evidence, stating it was crucial for deciding the issue on merits and that it could not be produced before the lower authorities due to the assessee being in judicial custody. The assessee requested another opportunity before the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, considering it crucial for deciding the issue on merits and noting that it was not verified by the lower authorities. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that he could not represent his case before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to being in judicial custody, which prevented him from collecting necessary documents and effectively pursuing the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found that the non-production of documents before the CIT(A)/NFAC was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents, records, information, and evidence in support of his claim, along with the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal, or any other documents/information as may be required by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The Tribunal also made it clear that in case of further default, the assessee would not be entitled to any leniency. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Learned Officer is justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant? (Mixed Law and Fact) 2. Whether the Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction? (Question of Law) 3. Whether the order is liable to be set aside as the same is against the principles of natural justice? (Question of Law) 4. Whether the order of CIT(A) is against the provisions of the case since it is dismissed for non-prosecution and the same is contrary to the provisions of section 250(5) and 250(6) of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) 5. Whether CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. [amount not specified] as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, in the absence of jurisdictional fact? (Mixed Law and Fact) 6. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not obtaining the required information under section 133(6) of the Act from the concerned? (Mixed Law and Fact) 7. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A), having accepted the unsecured loans from Miss Dhanalaxmi of Rs 15,24,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- from Darla Suvarama, erred in doubting the nature of the transaction and thereby making addition u/s 69A of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) 8. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A), having accepted the business transactions of the Assessee, erred in law and on facts in making addition u/ s 69A of the Act, leading to double taxation? (Mixed Law and Fact) 9. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is not required to maintain the details as sought in the impugned order while making addition u/s 69A of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) 10. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not giving full credit of self-assessment tax as appearing in form 26AS and as claimed in the return of income? (Mixed Law and Fact) 11. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A) erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) 12. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) 13. Whether the Learned AO/CIT(A) erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) 14. Whether the Learned AO/ CIT(A) erred in law by levying interest under section 234AB of the Act? (Mixed Law and Fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The additional evidence is crucial and was not submitted before lower authorities due to the assessee being in judicial custody, preventing collection of documents and effective pursuit of appeal. - The non-production of documents before the CIT(A)/NFAC was due to circumstances beyond control, not deliberate omission. - A fresh opportunity before the CIT(A)/NFAC is requested in the interest of justice and equity. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 133(6),Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 156,Section 234AB,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Siddhesh N. Gaddi, A.R
Hearing: 14.07.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 20.01.2026 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084952647(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The impugned order passed by the Learned Officer, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without ju

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,187 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →