BASAVANNA NANJAMARI SUNIL,TIPTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HASSAN

ITA 1987/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation offered in the condonation application to be plausible and sufficient. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they could not represent their case before the CIT(A) because all communications were sent to an email ID, despite the assessee having explicitly stated 'No' to email communication in Form No. 35. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it fit and proper to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. The CIT(A) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents, records, information, and evidence. The Tribunal made it clear that in case of further default, the assessee would not be entitled to any leniency. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Basavanna Nanjamari Sunil, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the CIT(A)-2, Panaji, Goa, dated 29.12.2025, for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 68 days. The assessee's primary contention was that the CIT(A) had passed the order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice, as communications were sent to an incorrect email ID despite the assessee explicitly stating 'No' to email communication in Form No. 35. The assessee also disputed the addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing the source was business income from copra sales, declared in the return and audited under Section 44AB.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal, despite the Appellant being unaware of the notices issued, thereby violating the principles of natural justice (turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? - Assessee's contention: All communications were sent to the email ID, and the assessee had indicated 'No' for email communication in Form No. 35, hence was unaware of the notices. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the source was business income already declared and audited under Section 44AB? - Assessee's contention: The source of the amount was business income from the sale of copra, which was declared in the return of income and audited under Section 44AB, rendering Section 69A inapplicable. The demonetization period's intent was not to penalize genuine business transactions, and the Assessing Officer mechanically made the addition without application of mind. The assessee also satisfied the Source Specific Verification guidelines vide CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 and that Specified Bank Notes transacted before 31/12/2016 remained legal tender as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 3. Whether the invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act are contrary to law?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 44AB,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 253

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: Ms. Sahana THM, Advocate
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)-2, Panaji, Goa dated 29.12.2025 vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1084156471(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant’s case. Basavanna Nanjamari Sunil, Bengal

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →