SIDDIQ HUSSAIN DELVI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BENGALURU

ITA 2374/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. It then decided to remit the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's failure to represent properly before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case for AY 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny due to large cash deposits during demonetization. Notices were issued, but the assessee failed to respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment under Section 144. The CIT(A)/NFAC also dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee failed to appear before lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 44 AB,Section 253(5),Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Hearing: 28.07.2025Pronounced: 30.07.2025

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 19.03.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062934244(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore Siddiq Husain Delvi, Bangalore 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. submitted that taking into cons

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →