MALLIKARJUN PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGA,INDI, BIJAPUR (VIJAYAPUR) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, VIJAYAPURA

ITA 1991/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2018-192 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal, for which no condonation petition or affidavit explaining sufficient cause was filed by the assessee. Furthermore, despite the notice of hearing being sent to the assessee's email address, the assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal or furnish any written submissions. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request for recalling the case based on non-service of notice, but found that the notice was indeed communicated. Consequently, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mallikarjun Pattina Sahakari Sangha, filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was filed with a delay of 8 days. The assessee did not file a condonation petition or an affidavit explaining the delay. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing. The assessee had requested to recall the case, stating that the notice of hearing was not served. However, the Tribunal noted that the notice was sent to the assessee's registered email ID. Despite the notice, the assessee failed to appear or submit any written arguments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable, considering the delay of 8 days and the absence of a condonation petition or sufficient cause for the delay, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the notice of hearing was not served, preventing their participation. They requested the recall of the case. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the Tribunal noted that the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee's email ID, and the assessee failed to appear or provide any submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

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. 147 r w s 144B vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084112970(1) dated 15-Feb-2026 for the Assessment Year 2018-19, arising out of the Order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 18.03.2024. ITA 1991/BANG/2026 MALLIKARJUN PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGA

2.

At the outset, it was noticed t

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →