MUBARAK GANDAPURI,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , HUBLI

ITA 1783/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's submission that the delay was due to an incorrect email ID on record and lack of knowledge about the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the due date with sufficient cause. However, upon adjudicating the merits of the appeal, the Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices from the AO and CIT(A), and failure to cooperate even after the previous remand by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had remained unresponsive and had not furnished any documents. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the addition made by the revenue authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mubarak Gandapuri, is appealing an order from the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The dispute arises from the addition of Rs. 35,40,260/- to the assessee's total income. The assessee, a non-filer, deposited cash during the demonetization period. Despite notices under section 142(1) and a final show cause notice under section 144, the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the cash deposits to the total income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal previously remanded the matter to the AO in ITA No.141/Bang/2020. However, the assessee failed to cooperate with the AO and the subsequent CIT(A) proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). The current appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 73 days, attributed by the assessee to an incorrect email ID on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal filed with a delay of 73 days, considering the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices and directions from the revenue authorities and the Tribunal in prior proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to the Income Tax Department having an incorrect email ID belonging to a former accountant. The assessee claimed to have become aware of the CIT(A)'s order only upon receiving a physical copy of a penalty notice and that the delay was unintentional and not due to negligence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the assessee has habitually been non-compliant, failed to cooperate with the AO and CIT(A), and did not comply with the Tribunal's previous directions. The Revenue argued that the revenue authorities had no option but to proceed with the assessment based on available material.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 254,Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S - Addl. CIT
Pronounced: 22.09.2026

PER SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075223683(1) dated 29-Mar-2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of the Order passed under section 144 r.w.s 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2022. 2. The facts are assessee being a non-filer has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.11,26,000/- during the demonetization

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →