MOHAN KUMAR KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1028/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's submission regarding the incorrect email ID and the late receipt of the Department Valuation Report. The Tribunal noted that the AO had requested a valuation report from the Department Valuation Officer on 08/01/2025, but it was only ready on 29/07/2025, after the assessment was completed on 24/03/2025. The assessee had now produced this report in the paper book. Since this report was not considered by the AO or the CIT(A) (due to the dismissal for non-prosecution), the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The issue of cost of construction was remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in light of the Department Valuation Report dated 29/07/2025, with an opportunity of being heard granted to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mohan Kumar Krishnappa, is an individual who did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. Based on information regarding a sale of immovable property, revision proceedings under Section 148A and a notice under Section 148 were initiated. The assessee subsequently filed a return declaring business income and long-term capital gain. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claimed cost of construction of Rs. 35,81,100/- for lack of supporting details and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 131 days, citing a wrong email ID for hearing notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 131 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the assessee's submission that the hearing notice was sent to a wrong email ID and the AO's request for a valuation report was received late. Assessee's contention: The delay was due to a technical error in receiving the hearing notice and the late issuance of the Department Valuation Report, which the AO could not consider. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay. Revenue's contention: The assessee had not co-operated with the authorities, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 2. Whether the matter should be remitted to the AO for fresh consideration of the cost of construction in light of the Department Valuation Report, which was obtained after the assessment was completed. Assessee's contention: The AO disallowed the cost of construction based on a private valuer's report, but the Department Valuation Report, obtained late, should be considered. The matter should be remitted to the AO for this purpose. Revenue's contention: The assessee had not co-operated with the authorities, and the appeal should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 270A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

PER SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 26/08/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2020-21. 1 Shri Mohan Kumar Krishnappa

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income. Based on the information that the assessee had entered into a financial transaction of sale of immovable property,

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 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →