K R NAGARA TALUKU VASAVI SHIKSHANA SAMSTHE MYSORE,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), MYSORE, MYSORE

ITA 1133/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2018-20199 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) fell within the parameters for condonation laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice and that the assessee stood to gain nothing from the late filing. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned. On merits, the Tribunal, considering the assessee's undertaking to furnish substantiating details and in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the details to be filed by the assessee. The penalty appeals under Sections 270A and 271AAC were also restored to the AO as consequential to the quantum additions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the grounds for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, K R Nagara Taluku Vasavi Shikshana Samsthe Mysore, is a trust that did not file its return of income for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after observing cash deposits totaling INR 1,15,53,926 in a Syndicate Bank account. The assessee did not respond to the notice under Section 148A(b). An order under Section 148A(d) was passed, followed by a notice under Section 148. The assessee filed a return declaring Nil income. The AO completed the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s 147 and 144B, making an addition of INR 1,15,53,926 under Section 69A as unexplained money and INR 20,660 as undisclosed interest income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 727 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay of 727 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to circumstances beyond its control, stemming from internal disputes among office bearers, preventing timely information flow. The previous President and Secretary withheld information. The appeal was filed promptly after receiving the assessment order. - Revenue's contention: The revenue relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 2. Whether the addition of INR 1,15,53,926 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was justified? - Assessee's contention: The deposits were from fees received from students, which are explainable sources and duly accounted for in the books. The conditions for invoking Section 69A were not met. - Revenue's contention: The revenue relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 3. Whether the addition of INR 20,660 as alleged undisclosed interest income was justified? - Assessee's contention: The assessee denied liability for this addition. - Revenue's contention: The revenue relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. Whether the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act was justified? - Assessee's contention: The levy of interest was bad in law as the period, rate, quantum, and method of calculation were not discernible and were incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139,Section 148A,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 246A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 270A,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Smt. Prajakta Thakur, JCIT

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the quant

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 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →