GANDHI BHARAT LAXMAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the absence of details/evidence from the Assessee and the limited time to respond to notices. Therefore, to ensure a just decision, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.48,04,062/- under section 69C and taxed it under section 115BBE. The Assessee challenged this before the Commissioner, but due to non-compliance with notices and failure to provide documents, the appeal was dismissed. The Assessee claimed the assessment was during the COVID period and they missed opportunities to respond to notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. Commissioner was justified given the circumstances, and if the case should be remanded for a fresh decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, BENGALURU BENCH
Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.12.2023, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2018-19.
Shri Gandhi Bharat Laxman 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) vide assessment order dated 26.4.2021 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act made the addition of Rs.48,04,062/- on account of disallowance u/s. 69C of the Act and added the same to the total income of the Assessee and taxed as per the provisions of the section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said addition before the ld. Commissioner, who in the appellate proceedings though afforded various opportunities to the Assessee by sending notices, however, the Assessee failed to avail the same and therefore in the absence of any details and documents and non- compliance to the notices by the Assessee, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and consequently affirmed the said addition made by the AO. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has claimed that the Assessee is a poor Assessee and assessment proceedings were carried out during the corona period (Covid 2019) when the entire nation was on hold and resulted into the passing of the order dated 26.4.2021 u/s/ 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Thereafter during the Covid-19 period itself, the Assessee instituted his first appeal dated 7.9.2021 before the ld. Commissioner. As it clearly appears from the para 5 of the impugned order that the said appeal infact was taken into consideration by issuing the notices and fixing for hearing in the Shri Gandhi Bharat Laxman month of November, 2023 and December, 2023 only and therefore the Assessee could not get the notices in time, which resulted into non- filing of the relevant documents during the appellate proceedings before the ld. Commissioner.
On the contrary the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee.
We have considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as in the absence of any details/evidence/documents which the Assessee failed to file, the ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances was unable to decide the appeal of the Assessee, in its true spirit and right perspective and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality and for the just decision of the case and ends of justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its case.
We are also inclined to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices and co-operate with the appellate proceedings and file the relevant documents/submissions in support of its claim before the ld. Commissioner and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Shri Gandhi Bharat Laxman Thus the case is remanded accordingly, in the aforesaid terms.
In the result appeal filed by the Assessee, stands allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 144B
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
