ASHWINI ESHWAR GALI,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD 5(3)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 2318/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before the CIT(A)/NFAC despite receiving four notices. The assessee's authorized representative stated that the assessee sought an adjournment to compile and submit documents, but the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, noting the absence of submissions and reliance only on the assessment order and Form-35. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut the Assessing Officer's findings. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and as requested by the assessee's representative, 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 be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was also instructed to produce all relevant documents, records, information, and evidence. The Tribunal made it clear that no leniency would be granted in case of further default. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashwini Eshwar Gali, filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, against an order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147 and 148, the confirmation of the assessment order, and the addition of Rs. 45,94,200 to the returned income of Rs. 4,74,620. The assessee also disputed the treatment of gross commission receipts, the disallowance of legitimate expenses totaling Rs. 29,39,127, the non-grant of TDS credit of Rs. 4,11,959, and the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC despite multiple notices, seeking adjournments to compile documents. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in passing the order without affording adequate opportunity of personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as per grounds 2 and 4, which turn on the procedural fairness under the Act. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in effectively confirming the order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal, as per ground 3, which relates to the substantive assessment. 3. Whether the learned authorities below erred in assuming jurisdiction under sections 147 and 148 of the Act, as per ground 6, questioning the validity of reassessment proceedings. 4. Whether the learned authorities below erred in treating the entire gross commission receipts of Rs. 41,19,581/- as taxable income without examining the real nature of the transactions and determining the actual income embedded therein, as per ground 7, concerning the computation of income. 5. Whether the learned authorities below ought to have allowed the legitimate expenses of Rs. 29,39,127/-, as per ground 8, relating to the deductibility of business expenses. 6. Whether the learned authorities below are justified in not granting the Appellant TDS credit of Rs. 4,11,959/-, as per ground 9, concerning the credit for tax deducted at source. 7. Whether the appellant is liable to be charged additional interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act, as per ground 10, regarding penal interest. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order in violation of natural justice by not granting adequate opportunity for personal hearing and by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The assessee also contended that the reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148 were wrongly assumed, the commission receipts were wrongly treated as fully taxable, legitimate expenses were disallowed, TDS credit was not granted, and interest under sections 234A and 234B was wrongly levied. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the revenue's standing counsel was present. However, specific arguments made by the revenue are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 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, Delhi dated 30.03.2026 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1088117420(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi, [for short ‘CIT(A), NFAC’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstance

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →