SHUBHANGI GIRIYAN NARAYAN,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 740/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2018-199 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before it, finding the explanation offered by the assessee in her condonation application and affidavit to be plausible and a sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that due to a change of address, she lacked communication and could neither represent her case before the AO nor file the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC within the prescribed period. Consequently, 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 Assessing Officer (AO) to decide afresh in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce all relevant documents. The assessee was also directed to update her contact details on the income tax portal, with a warning against future defaults. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 2,24,00,000/- and the assessee's share of Rs. 79,00,000/- was not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shubhangi Giriyan Narayan, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 56 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to not receiving any notice or order physically, as the communication was sent to an old address. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal before it as not maintainable due to a delay of 544 days. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 2,24,00,000/-. The assessee argued that she had sold only one ancestral property jointly with co-owners for Rs. 1,45,00,000/-, and her share was Rs. 79,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, of 56 days, is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits, having dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to a delay of 544 days. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,24,00,000/- by erroneously holding that the assessee sold two immovable properties, when in fact only one ancestral property was sold jointly for Rs. 1,45,00,000/-, with the assessee's share being Rs. 79,00,000/-, as per Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was due to not receiving any notice or order physically, as the communication was sent to an old address. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on merits. The assessee further argued that the addition made by the AO was incorrect as only one property was sold jointly and her share was Rs. 79,00,000/-, not Rs. 2,24,00,000/-. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Prashanth G.S., A.R
Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 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 31.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082191307(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Shubhangi Giriyan Narayan, Bengaluru Sl. GROUNDS OF APPEAL Tax No. Effect in Rs.

1 The orders of the authorities below, in so far as they are against - the appellant, are opposed to law, weight of evidence, principles of natural justi

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →