KOTA PARAMESHWAR MALATHI,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

ITA 1543/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2021-227 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) fall within the parameters for condonation laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice. The assessee, a senior citizen, suffered a severe spinal injury, leading to prolonged bed rest, which constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the delay of 168 days should have been condoned. On merits, acknowledging the assessee's submission that she would furnish details substantiating her bank deposits if given an opportunity, and considering the medical emergencies, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and furnish all necessary documents. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kota Parameshwari Malathi, an individual, is in appeal against the order dated 18/03/2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee did not file a return of income. Notices under Section 148 were issued, to which the assessee also did not respond. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 144, making additions for interest from savings accounts, unexplained investment in time deposits (Rs. 31,75,595/-), and purchase of immovable property (Rs. 3,61,41,000/-) under Section 69. The total income was computed at INR 3,97,14,880/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 168 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's medical condition and other circumstances (Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? - Assessee's contention: The delay was due to a severe L2 spinal fracture, rendering the appellant bedridden, and the medical documents were filed. The notices were not forwarded by the consultant. The appeal was filed upon engaging a new CA. - Revenue's contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2. On merits, whether the additions made by the AO under Section 69 for the purchase of immovable property are justified? - Assessee's contention: No transaction for the purchase of property occurred, thus Section 69 is not attracted. - Revenue's contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 3. On merits, whether the assessee has sufficient source of income to explain the investment in time deposit of Rs. 31,75,595/-? - Assessee's contention: The assessee has sufficient source of income. - Revenue's contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Whether the matter should be remanded to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, considering the medical emergencies faced by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 135A

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. Nishi Padma, Addl. CIT

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 18/03/2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

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 →