HEMMANAHALLY SIDDACHARI NAGAMANI,MANDYA KARNATAKA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1 & TPS MANDYA, MANDYA

ITA 1618/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the rejection of her appeal by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing, which she attributed to her lack of familiarity with e-proceedings and her rural background. The Assessing Officer had previously made additions to her income, treating certain investments and cash deposits as unexplained, which she contested. The Tribunal recognized the assessee's rural background and lack of knowledge in handling electronic proceedings as valid reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, thus condoning the delay on the condition of a monetary contribution to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824993 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N.
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDESH GADDI
• Keywords: Set aside; Revised return; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Tax effect; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 142(1); 69; 133(6); 139(5)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1618/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha Soudha, B M Road, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya Dt – 571 429. PAN: ABNPN7222R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 & TPS, Mandya. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14-10-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/05/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 and raised the following grounds: “1. The impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) /AO to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is not justified in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal under section 249 belatedly. Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 6 ITA No. 1618/Bang/2025 3. The learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the orders against the principles of natural justice. 4. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction. 5. In the absence of proper notice/order service, the impugned reassessment order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 6. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 15,05,000/-; as unexplained money; 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in recharacterizing the nature of income. 8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 are not applicable to facts in the present case; 9. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 69,50,000/- as the purchase of immovable property. 10. In making the above addition, the Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the source of investment; 11. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 is not applicable to the facts in the present case. 12. The impugned adjustments, being merely based on presumption and surmises, are to be deleted; 13. The Learned CIT(A) and AO should have obtained the required information by invoking the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act; 14. The purpose of assessment is to determine the correct income; the Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the same and proceeding ahead with the sole intention of making an addition to the returned income; 15. The impugned adjustments, being merely based on presumption and surmises, are to be deleted; Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 1618/Bang/2025 16. The order is unreasonably high pitch high-pitched for liable to be quashed in its entirety; 17. The actions of the Learned CIT(A) and AO are contrary to the provisions of the Act, facts of the case, arbitrary and without any application of mind; 18. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act; 19. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act for not furnishing the return of income. 20. The Learned Officer has erred in raising a demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act; 21. The Learned Officer has erred in law by levying interest under section 234A/B of the Act; (Tax effect Rs. 26,12,595/-) On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be quashed and relief sought be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31/03/2018. Thereafter a revised return u/s. 139(5) was also filed on 23/12/2019. The AO had issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act but the assessee had not responded to the said notice and therefore the AO based on the information available with him, had treated the purchase of a house as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the AO had made an addition u/s. 69A of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. The assessee had no knowledge about the assessment proceedings and therefore the appeal could not be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in time. Subsequently, on receipt of the penalty notice, the assessee found that there was an assessment made u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 930 days and also filed an application to condone the said delay. The assessee submitted that she is not well versed Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 1618/Bang/2025 in the faceless e-proceedings and also submitted that she is from a village background and therefore she had no knowledge about the order passed by the AO u/s. 144 of the Act. Only when the assessee had received a registered post, she approached the local consultant and he has also not taken any steps in time and therefore the said delay has been happened. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the said reasons averred by the assessee and therefore rejected the said application as without any valid reasons and thereby rejected the appeal filed by the assessee since the same is barred by limitation. 3. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal and reiterated the grounds raised. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the reasons stated in the said application to condone the delay is a fact since the assessee is a lady coming from the rural background, she has no knowledge about the operation of the e-proceedings and therefore she was not able to respond to the notices issued by the AO but unfortunately, the Ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the reasons stated by the assessee and dismissed the delay condonation application. The Ld.AR therefore prayed an opportunity to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and put forth their case on merits. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that even though notices were issued to the assessee, there was no response from the assessee and therefore the AO has no other option except to pass an order u/s. 144 of the Act. Further, the Ld.DR submitted that the reasons stated in the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is also not a valid one and therefore prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed. 6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. In the present case, there is no dispute about the status of the assessee that she is an old lady and coming from the rural background and Printed from counselvise.com Page 5 of 6 ITA No. 1618/Bang/2025 therefore it could be presumed that she has no knowledge in operating the portal as well as the computers. This fact was not disputed by the revenue. 8. Considering the said facts and also considering the fact that the assessment is a best judgment assessment, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on condition that the assessee should pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The said cost should be paid by the assessee within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Considering the fact that the assessment is also an ex-parte assessment, we deem it fit to remit the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. The AO is directed to consider the issue afresh and also verify the fact that the assessee had deposited the said cost as ordered by us in the earlier part of this paragraph and thereafter proceeded to decide the assessment in accordance with law. If the assessee has failed to comply with the condition of paying the cost, the benefit granted by us would automatically vacated and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) would restore automatically. With the above directions, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) Accountant Member (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 30th December, 2025. /MS / Printed from counselvise.com Page 6 of 6 ITA No. 1618/Bang/2025 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "