NAGANNA L/R FOR LATE RANGEGOWDA ,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 267/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 November 2025AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) passed the order ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, and similarly, the assessee failed to produce documents before the AO, leading to a best judgment assessment. The assessee also did not submit details before the CIT(A). However, in the present appeal, the assessee was represented and wished to pursue the case on merits. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate, furnish details, and raise all contentions. The AO was directed to consider all details and submissions and provide a due opportunity of hearing. As the matter was restored to the AO, other grievances raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at this stage. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rangegowda (Deceased) LR Naganna, filed an appeal against the order dated 16/12/2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2011-12. The impugned order was passed ex parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to produce documents sought by the Assessing Officer (AO), leading to a best judgment assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee also did not submit details before the CIT(A), and the AO's additions were affirmed. The present appeal before the ITAT had the assessee represented by their Authorized Representative, who wished to pursue the case on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the reopening of assessment by the AO under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law due to non-satisfaction of the conditions precedent? (Question of law, turning on Section 148). 3. Whether the passing of the order without complying with the legal and statutory requirements of reassessment proceedings makes the order bad in law? (Question of law, turning on reassessment procedures). 4. Whether the determination of taxable income in the hands of a non-existent entity by the AO, and the consequential tax calculation and levy of interest, are in accordance with law and the facts of the case? (Question of law and fact). 5. Whether the computation of income by the AO has any basis and is liable to be ignored? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and were bad in law. They contended that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was bad in law as conditions precedent were not met. Further, they argued that the assessment was made on a non-existent entity and the computation of income lacked basis. The assessee sought to quash the impugned order or delete the additions and interest levied. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.R
Hearing: 13.11.2025Pronounced: 14.11.2025

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The legal representative of the assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 16/12/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing officer. The appellate order as passed being bad in law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed.

2. In any case, the orders having been passed in total violation of principles of law, against the principles of natural justice

3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the reopening of assessment by ld. AO. The conditions precedent for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 having not been satisfied, the reopening of assessment was bad in law and hence the ld. CIT(A) should have instead of confirming the assessment order, quashed the reopening of assessment. 3.2 In any case, the passing of the order without complying with the legal and statutory requirements of reassessment proceeding also makes the order bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed.

4. In any case and without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the determination of some amount by Assessing Officer as taxable income in the hands of nonexistent entity and consequential tax calculation and levy of interest. These being not in accordance with law and against the facts of the case are to be totally rejected.

5. In any case and without further prejudice the computation of income has no basis and is to be ignored in total.

6.

In view of the above and on other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing the impugned order may be quashed or atleast the assessment of income as done be deleted and interest levied be also deleted.

3.

It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the documents as sought by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) and therefore the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. We find that no details were also submitted before the learned CIT(A), and the additions made by the AO were affirmed vide impugned order. In the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly

4.

In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits and produce all the documents in support of his claim. Since in the present case, the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the learned CIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions in support of its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As the matter is being restored to the jurisdictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal does not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th Nov, 2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →