PRABHAVATHI HARALUR KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU

ITA 2515/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 October 2026AY 2020-2110 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Prabhavathi Haralur Krishnappa, is an individual engaged in trading ready-made garments and receiving income from house property. For Assessment Year 2020-21, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information regarding cash deposits totaling Rs. 22,44,000 and time deposits of Rs. 22,00,000 in The Bharat Cooperative Bank Ltd., aggregating to Rs. 44,44,000. A show cause notice under section 148A(b) was issued, to which the assessee did not respond. The AO passed an order under section 148A(d) and issued a notice under section 148. The assessee filed a return declaring Rs. 3,70,220. Despite further notices, the assessee remained non-responsive. The AO made an addition of Rs. 11,22,000 as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 71 days, which was not condoned. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding the assessee's explanation that notices went to her email's spam folder to be plausible and a sufficient cause. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. Regarding the merits, both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent her case before the AO, leading to an ex-parte order and an addition of Rs. 11,22,000 under section 69A. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issues in dispute back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal imposed a token cost of Rs. 2,000 on the assessee for continued negligence in responding to statutory notices. The assessee is directed to produce all relevant details and evidence before the AO, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted. The Tribunal explicitly stated that further default would not entitle the assessee to any leniency.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation that notices went to the spam folder of her email. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argues that she had reasonable cause for the delay, as all notices, including the assessment order, were received in her email's spam folder. She only became aware of the proceedings through the e-proceedings portal and promptly filed the appeal with professional assistance, praying for condonation. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the assessee was callous and negligent in her approach, both in filing the appeal and during assessment proceedings, and prayed for costs to be levied. 2. Whether the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144, including the addition of Rs. 11,22,000 under section 69A, is valid, given the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and not having an effective opportunity to be heard. - Assessee's contention: The assessee contended that she could not represent her case before the AO due to not receiving notices and therefore prayed for another opportunity to substantiate her claims before the AO. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 143,Section 142,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 151,Section 151A,Section 130,Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

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 13.08.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079560939(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the A.Y.2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, and facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.

2.

The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed o

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →