ARCHANA RAVI KUMAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BENGALURU

ITA 2523/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Vice President), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was staying abroad and was dependent on her father for tax matters, which led to her not receiving or responding to notices. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for not responding and remaining unrepresented.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a housewife, failed to file her tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO passed an ex-parte assessment order treating sale consideration of an immovable property as income, determining long-term capital gain. The assessee did not respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to confirmation of the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for not responding to notices from tax authorities, and if the case should be remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to represent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 194IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY&

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 19.12.2025Pronounced: 17.02.2026

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President

1.

SA No. 142/Bang/2025 in ITA No. 2523/Bangalore/2025 for assessment year 2018 – 19 is filed by Smt. Archana Ravi Kumar seeking stay of outstanding demand of ₹ 3,454,362/–. At the time of hearing of the stay petition, it was noted that the assessment order in case of the assessee as per order dated 27th of March 2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is an ex parte assessment

SA No.142/Bang/2025 & order wherein the long term capital gain of ₹ 7,320,000 was assessed in the hands of the assessee. Against this the assessee has preferred

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →