SHOBHA.K.N,RAMANAGARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMANAGARAM
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that there was a bona fide reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the assessee had filed a Section 154 application prior to the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. Information about cash deposits during demonetization led the AO to issue notices under Section 142(1) and later 144, which were largely uncomplied with. The assessee's explanation for cash deposits and gold loan repayment was not accepted, leading to an addition of Rs. 9,36,830/-. A subsequent rectification application under Section 154 was rejected.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal dismissed by the CIT(A) for delay should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's circumstances and the pendency of a Section 154 application.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU
PER: PRAKASH CHAND YADAV,J.M.
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 3rd June, 2024 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065352019(1) and relates to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this present appeal are that assessee is an individual could not file the return of income for the impugned assessment year. An information came to the department that the assessee has deposited certain cash during demonetization period. Accordingly, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and asked the assessee to file the return of income. This notice remains un-complied with by the assessee.
The
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.
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 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
