MUNIREDDY SUDHA,BANGALORE V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

SA 82/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple stay petitions filed by various assessees against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore, concerning different assessment years. The petitions primarily challenged the reassessment orders and the issuance of notices under sections 143(2) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessees argued that the notices were issued mechanically without proper satisfaction and approval, and that there was no incriminating material found during the search. Additionally, issues regarding double taxation of income already disclosed under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) 2016 and non-issuance of credit for self-assessment tax were raised. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the balance of convenience favored the assessees and granted the stay and early hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792999 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148; 144; 6

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. SA No. A.Y. APPLICANT(S) V. RESPONDENT(S) 1. 62/Bang/2025 2015-16 Smt. Saraswathamma Munireddy, Shri Ramaredy Munireddy & Shri Munireddy Bhuvanander Reddy, L/Rs of late Marathahalli Ramiaiahreddy Munireddy, PAN: AHVPM 2563L 686, Airport Road, Near Canara Bank, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore. 2. 63/Bang/2025 2016-17 3. 64/Bang/2025 2015-16 Smt. Saraswathamma Munireddy, PAN: AVDPS 5602A 686, Airport Road, Near Canara Bank, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. 4. 65/Bang/2025 2016-17 5. 66/Bang/2025 2019-20 6. 67/Bang/2025 2022-23 7. 68/Bang/2025 2015-16 Shri Ramaredy Munireddy, PAN : AJCPM 7867N 686, Airport Road, Near Canara Bank, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. 8. 69/Bang/2025 2016-17 9. 70/Bang/2025 2019-20 10. 71/Bang/2025 2022-23 11. 72/Bang/2025 2015-16 Shri Munireddy Bhuvanander Reddy, PAN : BCFPB 8315R 686, Airport Road, Near Canara Bank, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. 12. 73/Bang/2025 2016-17 13. 74/Bang/2025 2019-20 14. 75/Bang/2025 2022-23 Printed from counselvise.com SP No.62 to 87/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 Sl. No. SA No. A.Y. APPLICANT(S) V. RESPONDENT(S) 15. 76/Bang/2025 2015-16 Smt. Munireddy Shobha, PAN: DTCPS 8283K 110, B Block, Knight Bridge Apts., Brookfield, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore. 16. 77/Bang/2025 2016-17 17. 78/Bang/2025 2019-20 18. 79/Bang/2025 2022-23 19. 80/Bang/2025 2015-16 Smt. Munireddy Sudha, PAN : FZOPS 0811R No.301, 3rd Floor, ATR Apartments, 9th Main Road, HAL 3rd Stage, New Tippasandra S.O., Bangalore – 560 075. 20. 81/Bang/2025 2016-17 21. 82/Bang/2025 2019-20 22. 83/Bang/2025 2022-23 23. 84/Bang/2025 2015-16 Smt. Manjula Lokesh, PAN : AAVPL 8492J Hongasandra Village, Madival Post, Bangalore – 560 058. 24. 85/Bang/2025 2016-17 25. 86/Bang/2025 2019-20 26. 87/Bang/2025 2022-23 Applicant(s) by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri N. Balusamy, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This stay petitions are filed by the assessee in captioned stay petitions wherein the appeals filed are pending for fixation of hearing. 2. The stay petitions say that majority of the outstanding demand is pertaining to AY 2015-16 wherein there is a challenge to notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] stated to be in violation of section 149(1)(b) with respect to satisfaction and approval of the PCIT Printed from counselvise.com SP No.62 to 87/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 and sanctions being mechanical. It is also stated that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search belonging to the assessee and further notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued. This is all culminating into the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act. It was also stated that merits of the issue is addition on account of capital gain on land transfer under the Joint Development Agreement. The income arising out of the above is stated to be already offered by the assessee in IDS, 2016 and therefore it could not have been taxed again. There are other minor issues also involved in case of all these assessees with respect to reclassification and recharacterisation of house property income as well as taxing of undisclosed rental income from SEZ. 3. For AY 2016-17, identical technical issue with respect to reopening and the reassessment are raised. Over and above, it was also stated that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is in violation of section 149(1)(b) as the financial limit of Rs.50 lakhs is not crashed. 4. With respect to AY 2019-20, issues with respect to reopening of assessment and on merits are similar to AY 2016-17. For this AY, there is also issue of self-assessment tax credit not given to the assessee. 5. For AY 2022-23, the assessee has challenged that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued in the format other than the format approved by the CBDT and submitted that there are plethora of judicial precedents of the various Tribunals which have held that such notices are bad in Printed from counselvise.com SP No.62 to 87/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 law. On the merits, the assessee is contesting similar issue as were there for AY 2019-20. 6. The ld. AR, Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA, vehemently stated that the chart clearly shows issues on jurisdiction and merits are covered in favour of the assessee by one or another judgement, hence, the balance of convenience lies in favour of assessee. On the merits, he submits that when income is offered for taxation of capital gain arising on the Joint Development Agreement which has already been considered in IDS, 2016, there is double taxation. He further stated that the AO may be directed to grant credit of pre-paid and self-assessment taxes which were denied without any reason. 7. The ld. DR vehemently objected to the stay petitions and submitted that assessee may be directed to deposit 20% of the outstanding demand. It was further stated that on the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act in a different format, there is a direct decision of the coordinate Bench against the assessee. 8. In response, the ld. AR stated that assessee has also make a request for early hearing of all these appeals and he suggested a tentative date of hearing in the first or second week of November 2025. He submitted that assessee has furnished all the relevant paper books, etc. Therefore, assessee may be granted stay till the disposal of these appeals, and he assured that no adjournment would be sought for, unless there are compelling reasons. Printed from counselvise.com SP No.62 to 87/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities as well as the reasons mentioned for seeking stay. On all the issues stated above, we find that balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee as it has challenged on the ground of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, reassessment not in accordance with law and sanction u/s. 151 being mechanical. It is not disputed that assessee has disclosed the income arising from the Joint Development Agreement in IDS, 2016. The same income is also taxed in the assessment proceedings. Therefore the same income cannot be taxed twice. However, it is required to be seen in which year it is taxable. The assessee has also not been granted credit of self- assessment tax. We direct the ld. AO to grant credit of self-assessment taxes paid in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above facts, we find that balance of convenience lies in favour of assessee and we also grant early hearing of these appeals , therefore we direct the ld. AO to keep the outstanding demand arising out of these appeals in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals or 180 days from the date of this order, whichever is earlier. We make it absolutely clear that stay would be vacated immediately if assessee seeks adjournment on non-compelling reasons. 11. As the power of issue of the notices rests with the Registrar in terms of ITAT Rules, 1963, Registry is directed to issue notice of hearing in these appeals at the earliest, preferably on the dates mentioned by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com SP No.62 to 87/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 12. In the result, all the Stay Petitions filed by the assessee and early hearing petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 22nd September 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "