INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. SYED BASHA AMEERJAN, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 882/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding it to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that if the Hon'ble High Court quashes the re-assessment proceedings, the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal would become infructuous. However, if the assessee does not succeed before the Hon'ble High Court, the Revenue will have the liberty to revive this appeal by making an application, and it would then be heard on merits. This decision was made with the consent of both parties. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the assessment or the reopening.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed by the National e-Assessment Centre. The original assessment proceedings were reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee was a non-filer who had withdrawn a significant sum of cash. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,25,18,673/-. The CIT(A) held that only 8% of the net profit should be estimated, not the entire bank credit. No ground challenging the reopening was raised before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction, as argued by the assessee? 2. Whether the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are a nullity if the reopening is quashed? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that a Writ Petition (WP No. 329/2026) had been filed challenging the reopening, and the Hon'ble High Court had stayed all proceedings. The assessee contended that if the reopening is quashed, the entire proceedings would be a nullity. The assessee suggested restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer and, if the High Court quashes the reopening, no further proceedings would be required. If the assessee does not succeed in the High Court, the Revenue should be given liberty to revive the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative agreed to the assessee's suggestion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, बेंगलुरू पीठें, बेंगलुरू INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE BENCH : B BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 882/Bang/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2018-19) INCOME TAX OFFICER SYED BASHA AMEERJAN WARD-5(2)(1), NO 43/1 BMTC, COMPLEX, JOURNALIST COLONY, 80 FEET ROAD, M.T.B ROAD Vs. KORAMANGALA, KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU-560095, BANGALORE 560002, KARNATAKA KARNATAKA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AIMPA9730H

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Sri. Pradeep S - Addl. CIT प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Sri. Rajeev Nulvi - Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 26-Oct-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 27-Oct-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal is filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bengaluru (the Ld. Assessing Officer) against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 24.12.2025 wherein the Assessee’s Appeal against the Assessment Order passed on 25.01.2024 by the National e-Assessment Centre u/s. 143 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was partly allowed.

2.

The facts in this case shows that case of the Assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s. 147 of the Act being Assessee a non-filer has withdrawn cash of Rs. 1,27,08,600/- through bearer’s cheque from the bank. The notice u/s. 148 of the Act following the proper procedure was issued. Consequently, the Ld. Assessing Officer on the merits made an addition of Rs. 2,25,18,673/-. This was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee holding that only 8% of the net profit is required to be estimated and not the entire bank credit should be income of the Assessee. The facts show that before the Ld. CIT(A) no ground challenging the reopening of the assessment was raised and therefore the Ld. Assessing Officer is in Appeal before us.

3.

At the time of hearing Shri Rajeev Channappa Nulvi, Advocate on behalf of the Assessee appeared and submitted that Writ Petition No. 329/2026 filed by the Assessee against the issue of the reopening has been challenged in the Writ Petition stated that the proceedings are one without jurisdiction. He submitted that Hon’ble High Court has stayed all the proceedings till the next date of hearing. Therefore, he submitted that if reopening would be quashed the whole proceedings being the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) would be nullity. He therefore suggested that issue may be restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer, that if reopening is quashed no further proceedings are required and if the petition of the Assessee before the Hon’ble High Court does not succeed, the Revenue may be given a liberty to revive this Appeal. The Ld. Departmental Representative also agreed to the same,

4.

Accordingly, we dispose of this Appeal by sending it back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer that if the Hon’ble High Court quashes the re-assessment proceedings, the Appeal of the Revenue would be infructuous before us. However, if the Assessee does not succeed before the Hon’ble High Court, the Revenue will have liberty to revive this Appeal by making an application and then it would be heard on merit.

5.

Thus, with the consent of both the parties, the Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL PRASHANT MAHARISHI JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore Dated: 27.10.2026 *TNTS* Copy to:

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(1), 1 BMTC, COMPLEX, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095, KARNATAKA 2 SYED BASHA AMEERJAN NO 43/1 JOURNALIST COLONY, M.T.B ROAD KALASIPALYAM BANGALORE 560002, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE CIT(APPEALS) 5 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH BY ORDER

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., BANGALORE P G Digitally signed by P G RAJANI RAJANI Date: 2026.10.30 16:47:13 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →