IMTHIYAZ ANWAR, MANGALURU,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU

ITA 1699/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of a medical reason supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that he was engaged in the fish trading business and was suffering from a medical issue that prevented his appearance before the revenue authorities. Considering these circumstances and the assessee's claim of possessing supporting records for cash deposits, the Tribunal decided to grant one more additional opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and the penalty order, remitting the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. The AO was directed to await the outcome of the quantum appeal before deciding the penalty proceedings and to grant a personal hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also given liberty to produce necessary documents. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Imthiyaz Anwar, is an appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, challenging orders of the NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee is a non-filer. Following information about bank transactions, a notice under section 148 was issued after compliance with section 148A. The assessee filed a return, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee did not furnish details. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice. The assessee responded, stating he is in the fish trading business and that cash deposits and withdrawals related to this business, providing balance sheet and P&L account. The AO noted a profit of only 0.5% and, in the absence of a cash book and bank account details, treated cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A. Penalty proceedings under section 270A were also initiated for underreporting and misreporting income. The CIT(A) dismissed both the quantum and penalty appeals ex-parte. The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT, with a delay of 80 days in the quantum appeal, citing medical reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's medical condition. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to appear before the AO for a fresh hearing, given his medical condition and claim of possessing supporting records for cash deposits. 3. Whether the penalty levied under section 270A is warranted. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's primary contention for non-appearance before revenue authorities was a medical condition, supported by a medical certificate. The assessee claimed to have all records to support the cash deposits and argued that the penalty order was not warranted. The assessee prayed for an opportunity to appear before the AO. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee did not file his return of income and failed to cooperate with the department, thus the assessment and penalty orders should be sustained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 270A

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 N. Balusamy, JCIT – DR

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi both dated 20/11/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-filer and based on the information that the assessee had transacted in his bank account, notice u/s. 148 was issued after following the procedures prescribed

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 →