YOUSUF SHARIFF,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 2635/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yousuf Shariff, filed appeals against a common impugned order dated 06.10.2025, passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Bengaluru, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The appeals were heard together due to similar factual matrices and grounds. The learned PCIT(A) had passed the order ex parte because the assessee failed to comply with notices of hearing. The assessee, now represented by a learned Authorized Representative, wished to pursue the litigation and undertook to comply with future notices if the appeals were restored.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the learned PCIT(A) had passed the order ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. However, the assessee was now duly represented and wished to pursue the appeals on merits. The assessee's learned AR undertook to comply with all notices if the appeals were restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the learned PCIT(A)/CIT(A). Consequently, the common impugned order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the learned PCIT(A)/CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal directed that no order should be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to furnish/update their email address for receiving hearing notices and to appear on all scheduled dates without default. As the matters were being restored for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at this stage. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned PCIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, making the order bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Whether the order passed by the learned PCIT(A) was in violation of the principles of natural justice, making it bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Whether the learned PCIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal and confirming the assessment order for default without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal. 4. Whether the learned PCIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,41,37,790/- as Long-term capital gains on deemed transfer under section 2(47) of the Act. 5. Whether the authorities below were justified in levying interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act, and if so, whether the quantum, period, and other aspects were discernible. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the orders passed were bad in law, in violation of natural justice, and that the addition of Rs. 3,41,37,790/- as long-term capital gains was incorrect. They also challenged the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 2(47),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeals against common impugned order dated 06.10.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA 2632 - 2636/BANG/2025 YOUSUF SHARIFF

(Appeals) – 11, B

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →