ANSARI PAKKIDAKALA ,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

ITA 146/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 March 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the ex parte assessment order, the dismissal on technical grounds, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income, leading to a best judgment assessment under section 144. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a portion of bank deposits as unexplained under section 69A and the rest as business income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground of a 935-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the ex parte assessment, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits rather than dismissed on limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A,Section 44AD,Section 264,Section 249

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 134 Taxmann.com 307
    134 Taxmann.com 307 · 2022 · SC
    53 citing

ITA No.146/Bang/2025 the demonetisation period, a notice under section 142(1) was issued requiring the assessee to file return of income but the assessee failed to file the return. In the absence of response from the assessee, the AO proceeded to complete best judgment assessment as per section 144 of the Act.

4.

The AO from the bank statement of the assessee observed that during the year the bank account of the assessee was credited for the sum of Rs. 63,77,397/- which included cash deposits of Rs. 55,52,450/- only. Out of total cash deposits during the year, a sum of Rs. 27,26,200/- was made deposit during the demonetisation period. The AO further worked out average monthly cash deposit of the assessee except for November 2016 at Rs. 2,57,841. 00. Applying the average monthly cash deposit, the AO worked annual cash deposit of Rs. 30,94,092 from business and remaining amount of cash deposit of Rs. 24,58,358/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

4.

1 As the bank account of the assessee for the year was credited for Rs. Rs. 63,77,397/- through cash and bank transfer and out of the same, an amount of Rs. 24,58,358 was treated as unexplained money,

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 →