SHARADAMBA ENTERPRISES,HUBLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HUBBALLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1407/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – (President), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal is dismissed due to defective presentation and non-prosecution. The assessee failed to rectify defects pointed out by the Registry, did not condone the 754-day delay, and did not appear for the hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income for AY 2012-13 which was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The AO treated lease rent as business income and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B and 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable considering the numerous defects in presentation, delay, and non-prosecution?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 271B,Section 271(1)(c),Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian .S

ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 19/03/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed their return of income on 12/03/2013 and the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 03/07/2013. Thereafter the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO had treated the lease rent received by the assessee under the head business or profession. In the said order, the AO had also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271B and 271(1)(c) of the Act. As against Ld.CIT(A) and thereafter further appeal before this Tribunal and the issue went against the assessee by the order of this Tribunal. Thereafter the AO issued notice u/s. 271B for not getting the books of accounts audited as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). In form 35, in Sr.No. 2.(a), Section and sub-section of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was mentioned as 271B of the Act. In Sr.No. 13 in the relevant section column, it was mentioned as 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act. Now the present appeal has been filed by the assessee and in the grounds of appeal, the assessee had raised several grounds as if the penalty has been imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). In column 3B of form 36, the assessee has mentioned the date of order as 21/03/2025 whereas enclosed the order dated 19/03/2023 of the Ld.CIT(A).

3. We also perused the order sheet in which the various defects were mentioned by the Registry which are as follows: “1. Appeal is time-barred by 754 days. 2. (EF) Date of service/communication of order in Column 3(c) not (correctly) filled in 3. Appellant's E-Mail address is not mentioned / wrongly mentioned.

4. Appellant's Mobile Number is not mentioned / wrongly mentioned. 5. Col. No. 3B is wrongly filled 6. One original/certified copy of originl order of CIT(A) not filed 7. Penalty order not filed in duplicate”

4. In the said order sheet, the Registry had clearly mentioned about the delay in filing the appeal and the wrong mentioning of the date of the order Ld.CIT(A) in column 3B and about the non-furnishing of the email ID and the mobile number of the assessee and the non-filing of the original / certified copy of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the non-filing of the penalty order in duplicate. Even though the delay is 754 days in filing the appeal, the assessee had not filed any application to condone the said delay and also not complied with the various defects pointed out by the Registry. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) order deals with the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act whereas in form 36, the assessee had pleaded to delete the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

Even though there are several defects, the assessee had not rectified the defects pointed out by the Registry and also not appeared before this Tribunal. In fact, a notice sent through RPAD was also returned as not delivered. The reason mentioned in the returned cover is that the address is not proper. We, therefore could not be able to decide the appeal by one way or another. When the matter was listed for hearing on 15/09/2025, the appeal was paused over and it was called again at the end of the hearings and nobody appeared for the assessee. In such circumstances, we have no other remedy except to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as defective presentation.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for defective presentation and also for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →