SHASHIDHARA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1& TPS, SHIVAMOGGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's claims of not being computer literate and personal circumstances like his son's marriage, decided to provide another opportunity. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
During a survey, a statement indicated the assessee paid Rs. 15 lakhs as liaisoning charges. The assessee, who had not filed a return, was issued a notice under section 148. The assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147, adding Rs. 15 lakhs under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 133A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 10.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.
There is a delay of 68 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also a supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay for belated filing of this appeal and I am of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, I condone the delay of 68 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
During the course of survey in the case of Shri. L. Venkatesh on 18.02.2019, a statement was recorded from him under section 133A of the Act. Shri. L. Venkatesh had stated that he had received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as liasoning charges from the assessee. Since assessee had not filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and the source of cash paid by the assessee to Shri. L. Venkatesh was to be examined, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Since there was no response to the several notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act, assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2021 adding a sum of Rs.15 lakhs under section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Since there was no response to the several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) for furnishing the written submissions, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition made under section 69C of the Act.
Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A), assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that assessee was not computer literate and did not access email on regular basis. It was further submitted that assessee was suffering from Acid Peptic disease with reflux oesophagitis. A certificate to the effect has been produced and is placed on record. It was submitted that assessee’s son got married during the course of appellate proceedings which resulted in non-compliance to the notice issued. On merits, it was submitted that assessee had not paid Rs.15 lakhs to Shri. L. Venkatesh during the relevant Assessment Year. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the Orders of the AO and CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for the reason that assessee had not responded to several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). It is the claim of the assessee that he is not computer literate and did not check emails regularly. Further, it is submitted that assessee’s son’s marriage was conducted during the course of appellate proceedings. A certificate to the effect has been placed on record. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that assesee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to present his case. Since the Assessment Order is best judgment assessment, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
