VENKATARAMANAIAH SAVITHA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 543/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 September 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay plausible and sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the assessee also could not represent her case before the AO despite several notices. Considering the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, and as requested by the assessee's AR, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The AO was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to produce all relevant documents. The Tribunal made it clear that no leniency would be granted in case of further default. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and the assessee had not been able to represent her case properly before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Venkataramanaiah Savitha, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for being delayed by approximately 10 months. The assessee contended that she was unaware of the income tax proceedings, did not receive notices or the assessment order, and was not tax-savvy, leading to the delay. The Revenue argued that in faceless assessment proceedings, real-time delivery of notices occurs, and the assessee is responsible for tracking her case. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex-parte assessment order, making additions of Rs. 14,60,500/- as unexplained money and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- as unexplained investment in immovable property.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of approximately 10 months, despite the assessee's explanation of being unaware of the proceedings and not receiving notices? - Assessee's Contention: The delay was due to the assessee being a lady, not tax-savvy, not checking the income tax portal regularly, and not receiving the assessment order or demand notice by post or email. She was unaware of the proceedings, hence the question of adhering to timelines did not arise. The CIT(A) erred in not considering her condonation application and not discussing the merits of the case, citing Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs DCIT and Jain Steel Corporation. - Revenue's Contention: In faceless assessment proceedings, there is real-time delivery of notices, and it is incumbent upon the assessee to keep track of her assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for not condoning the delay. 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in upholding the AO's order without considering the merits of the case, particularly the explanation for investments in property and bank accounts? - Assessee's Contention: The AO passed the assessment order in a hurried manner without adequate opportunity to rebut presumptions, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) erred in not considering her appeal on merits, as she had explained her investment in property through housing loan and balance deposits in her bank account. The additions under Section 69A were based on bank statements, which are not books of accounts. There was double taxation of Rs. 16,50,000/- as cash deposit and investment in immovable property. The AO's assessment was high-pitched and presumptive.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 69,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 12.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083619844(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the orders in a hurried manner without properly examining the appellant’s situation for delay in filing the appeal and further erred in not considering her condonation of delay application.

2.

The Comm

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →