RAVI DORESWAMI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to represent the case before the CIT(A) might be due to a notice being sent to the spam folder. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a revised return declaring a lower gross total income after initially declaring a higher income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 144 and imposed a penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting and misreporting income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee, and if the notice was properly served.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte Order passed by the CIT(A) vide DIN &Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1075139271(1) dated 27.03.2025.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2017 declaring gross total income of Rs.35,89,535/- claiming deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.1,13,132/-. Assessee has declared salary of Rs.37,73,323/- and loss from 1,83,788/- and assessee claimed TDS of Rs.8,94,454/-. Subsequently, assessee revised his return of income on 28.01.2018 declaring gross total income of Rs.14,08,951/- and total income of Rs.12,97,430/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI A of Rs.1,11,525/-.
In the revised return, assessee admitted income from salary of Rs.15,92,739/- and loss from house property of Rs.1,83,788/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Assessee has received salary income from Mindtree Ltd., and Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, information under section 133(6) of the Act was called for. As per the information received, the salary income was assessed at Rs.37,73,323/- and assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. The AO imposed penalty under section 270A of the Act and passed Order on 25.03.2022 for under reporting income which is in consequence of misreporting of income.
Aggrieved from the above penalty Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 23.04.2022. The learned CIT(A) issued various notices for compliance in support of the appeal filed by the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Therefore, he dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of the material available before him.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee is a salaried person. Because of the revised return, the AO imposed penalty under section 270A of the Act and penalty Order was passed on 25.03.2022. The notice issued under section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A) might have settled in the spam folder of the email. Therefore, assessee could not represent his case and requested and undertook that if a chance is given, assessee shall substantiate his case with necessary documents. The ld. Dr relied on the order of lower authorities. Considering the rival submissions, the assessee could not represent his case for want of proper service of notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) as explained by the assessee. In the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 133(6)
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Ritu Rajesh Gohil, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs ITO Ward 2(1), Jamnagar, GujaratITA 109/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shalini Vishwakarma vs. Icici BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
