ARUN KUMAR NATRARAJAN ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 489/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an 83-year-old senior citizen, did not receive notices sent via email due to his lack of tech savviness. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file his income tax return, leading to an order under Section 148A(d). The Assessing Officer made additions based on cash deposits, unexplained investments, and salary variations. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to notices being sent via email instead of post, considering the assessee's age and tech savviness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148,Section 139,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 69B,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 16.06.2025Pronounced: 11.09.2025

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 14.1.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072152870(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3.

Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the department, the assessee had contractual receipts of Rs.2,58,633/-, cash deposits of Rs.14,54,500/- in bank, salary of Rs.2,93,781/- and also purchased an immovable property of Rs.73,80,000/-. As the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act and therefore, the JAO passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 27.3.2022 for escapement of income and Arun Kumar Natarajan, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.5.2022. During the course of the assessment proceedings, after considering the reply filed by the assessee, the AO made various additions as detailed below:

Sl.No. Description Amount (in INR) 1. Income as per Return of income filed u/s 3,67,190/- 148 2. Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) NA 3. Income from salary disclosed from Unisys 31,917/- Global Services India as per Form 16 submitted by assessee 4. Variation in respect of cash deposit being 14,50,000/- unexplained money u/s 69A 5. Variation in respect of unexplained 22,30,000/- investment u/s 69B 6. Variation in respect of Salary from 97,732/- Vodaphone 7. Variation in respect of deduction under 50,623/- chapter VI-A Total income 42,27,462/- 3.1 The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on a total assessed income of Rs.42,27,462/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. AO passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 14.3.2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

5.

The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in spite of providing 3 opportunities to the assessee to represent his case, the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and accordingly decided the appeal against the assessee on the basis of materials available on record.

Arun Kumar Natarajan, Bangalore Page 4 of 5 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed written submissions along with paper book containing the documents and evidence in support of his claim.

7.

Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that all the notices of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC were sent on the e-mail address, whereas the assessee had categorically mentioned in the Form No.35 that the notices/communication may not be sent on e- mail as the assessee is a senior citizen aged 83 years and is not a tach savvy person and accordingly prayed that the case may be remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee.

8.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee could not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. On going through the Form No.35 filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we take a note of the fact that the assessee had specifically mentioned that the notices/communication may not be sent by e-mail. We also take a note of the fact that assessee is a senior citizen aged 83 years and is not a tech savvy person as contended by the ld. AR of the assessee.

9.1 Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to substantiate his claim as no opportunity has been granted by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC before passing the appellate order. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R.

Arun Kumar Natarajan, Bangalore Page 5 of 5 of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be granted to the assessee and the notices for hearing may be sent physically on the registered postal address of the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/records/information in support of his claim & as directed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and should not take unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th Sept, 2025

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →