532 SUDHANA VIVIDHODDESHA SOWHARDA SAHAKARA LIMITED,BELATHANGADI, NEAR CORPORATION BANK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE, PUTTUR,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ,

ITA 446/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 643 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient cause due to the CEO's incapacitation and the resulting inability to access the IT portal. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's plea for another opportunity, considering the submission that notices were not received on their active email ID, leading to non-participation. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Simultaneously, the assessee was directed to participate in the remand proceedings without unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee failed to comply, the AO would be at liberty to frame the assessment based on the material available on record. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sudhana Vividhoddesha Sowharda Sahakara Limited, is in appeal against the order of the learned DCIT for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Department had information that the assessee deposited Rs. 1,31,40,500/- in cash during FY 2016-17 and had not filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147, issued notices under Section 148 and 142(1), but the assessee remained non-compliant. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147, making an addition of Rs. 1,46,45,539/- under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to a delay of 161 days. The present appeal before the ITAT also faced a delay of 643 days, attributed to the CEO's incapacitation after an accident, who held the login credentials for the IT portal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone the delay of 643 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer, given the alleged non-receipt of notices and the circumstances leading to non-participation in earlier proceedings? Assessee's arguments: The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the CEO's medical condition following an accident, as he was the sole holder of the IT portal login credentials. The assessee also argued that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an email ID not used by them, leading to their unawareness of the hearing dates and subsequent non-participation. They prayed for one more opportunity before the AO to substantiate the cash deposits. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that sufficient opportunities had already been provided to the assessee, and the assessee failed to comply with any of the notices. They prayed for the upholding of the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. DCIT vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061452798(1) dated 24-Feb-2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of the Order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2022. ITA 446/BANG/2026 532 SUDHAN

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 →