JAYANTA MADAB BORUAH,BENGALURU vs. WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(1), BLR, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 529/BANG/2025Status: HeardITAT Bangalore20 January 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) filed a withdrawal application dated 06/01/2026, stating that instructions were received from the assessee to withdraw the appeal considering the small quantum of demand involved. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection to this request. The Tribunal, having perused the withdrawal application and heard both sides, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the additions proposed by the AO and confirmed by the DRP, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an NRI, sold an immovable property for Rs. 85,00,000/- and received bank interest of Rs. 4,063/- for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148A and 142(1) for non-filing of the return. The assessee provided partial details. Subsequently, the AO proposed additions for sale consideration, bank balance, and interest income. The assessee replied, explaining the property sale and other additions, and sought time for further particulars. The AO, not satisfied, issued a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1). The assessee filed objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP, after obtaining a remand report from the AO, confirmed the capital gains and interest income as income from other sources. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the DRP's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the DRP in respect of capital gains on sale of immovable property and interest income are valid, turning on the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning computation of income and capital gains. Assessee's contentions: The assessee's primary contention, as indicated by the withdrawal application, was to withdraw the appeal due to the small quantum of demand involved. No specific arguments regarding the merits of the additions were recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the learned CIT-DR, had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 144C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT(IT)A No. 529/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Shri Jayanta Madab Boruah, The Income Tax Flat 717, Shobha Quartz Officer, Apartment, Ward – 1(1), Outer Ring Road, International Bellandur, Taxation, Vs. Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. PAN: ACHPB4238L APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Manish Golyan on behalf Assessee by of Sri Gupta Jai & Company Revenue by : Dr. Divya K.J. CIT-DR

Date of Hearing : 13-01-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20-01-2026

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 17/01/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an NRI and sold an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- and also received bank interest of Rs. 4,063/-. The AO had issued a notice u/s. 148A of the Act for non-filing the return of income even though the assessee had sold an immovable property. The assessee had not responded to the said notices

Page 2 of 3 IT(IT)A No. 529/Bang/2025 and thereafter notice u/s. 142(1) was issued. The assessee partially submitted the details and documents as sought for by the AO. Thereafter, another notice u/s. 142(1) was issued. The assessee submitted his submissions and also filed the documents in support of the said submissions. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued and addition in respect of the receipt of sale consideration as well as the balance available at the end of the reporting period in the bank accounts were also proposed. Similarly, interest received from the said bank was also proposed to be added as income. The assessee filed his reply and explained the facts of sale of the property and about the other additions. The assessee sought for some time to file some more particulars and therefore the AO not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, had issued a draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) of the Act. The assessee also filed his objections with the DRP. The assessee filed various documents before the DRP and finally the DRP, after obtaining the remand report from the AO, had confirmed the capital gains as well as the interest income as income from other sources.

3.

As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR filed a copy of the withdrawal application dated 06/01/2026 and prayed to allow the assessee to withdraw the said appeal. The Ld.AR also stated that he has got instructions from the assessee for withdrawing the said appeal.

5.

The Ld.DR submitted that he has no objection for withdrawing the appeal filed by the assessee.

6.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.

We have perused the application filed on behalf of the assessee dated 06/01/2026 in which the Ld.AR had specifically averred in paragraph

Page 3 of 3 IT(IT)A No. 529/Bang/2025 number 2 that he has received instructions from the assessee for withdrawal of the appeal, considering the small quantum of demand involved. Recording the said letter given by the Ld.AR, we are allowing the assessee to withdraw the appeal filed by them. We, therefore dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 20th January, 2026. /MS /

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →