JAYANTH,MYSURU vs. ITO WARD-2(4), MYSURU

ITA 1512/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to represent his case on merits and furnish all details in respect of the additions made by the AO. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish all relevant details and documents and to fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings. The assessee was also directed to furnish any other details sought by the AO. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The principle is that procedural delays, especially for individuals claiming to be agriculturists and not properly advised, can be condoned to allow for a decision on merits, ensuring fairness.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jayanth, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148A and subsequently under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after obtaining information from Bank of Baroda regarding total debits and credits of INR 28,98,669 and INR 29,00,503 respectively. As the assessee did not respond, the entire credit of INR 29,00,053 was treated as unexplained money under section 69A and added to his income. Further additions were made for commission, professional fees, and contractual receipts (INR 1,60,596) and for business income (INR 29,244) based on sales of INR 1,46,218, as the assessee did not respond to notices issued to verify these transactions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of over 4 months.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should grant the assessee an opportunity to present his case on merits, despite the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the non-response during assessment proceedings, considering the assessee's claim of being an agriculturist and not being properly advised? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The assessee, being an agriculturist engaged in tobacco cultivation, could not respond to notices during the cultivation period. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to not being properly advised. The assessee undertakes to provide all supporting details if given an opportunity. Revenue's contention: The learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

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 appeal against the impugned order dated 06/01/2026, 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)”], for the assessment year 2020-21. ITA 1512/BANG/2026 JAYANTH

2.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and peruse

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →