PRATAP SINGH ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 540/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Pratap Singh against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was dated 27/11/2024 concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issues arose from the non-response of the assessee to notices regarding unexplained cash deposits and large agricultural income claimed, which led to a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay, which the Tribunal later condoned, allowing the case to be heard on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835808 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHA J
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 540/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Pratap Singh, No. 31/1, New No 13/1, Ground Floor, Ramannapet, J M Road Cross, Cubbonpet, Bangalore – 560 002. PAN: ATOPS6139F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5(2)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Harsha J, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12-02-2026 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 27/11/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 30/10/2017 and thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for verifying the large agriculture income shown in the ITR and large cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Subsequently, notices u/s. 143(2) as well as u/s. 142(1) were issued and the assessee had not responded to the said notices and therefore the AO had Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 540/Bang/2025 treated the cash deposits made during the year as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and also disallowed the claim of agricultural income. The assessee has challenged the said order before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 2 years and 7 months and also filed an application to condone the said delay. The Ld.CIT(A), not satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit, had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 3. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal with a delay of 42 days and explained that the said delay has been occurred since the assessee was not able to identify the counsel for filing the second appeal before this Tribunal and therefore the delay of 42 days has been occurred and prayed to condone the said delay. 4. We have considered the said submissions and we are accepting the reasons and inclined to condone the said delay of 42 days in filing the present appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has no knowledge about the assessment proceedings since all the communications were sent to the email ID of the appellant viz., [e-mail] which was not used by the assessee for a long time. Therefore the communications sent by the assessing officer was not known to the assessee. Only when the auditor was about to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23, he found that there was an outstanding demand for the A.Y. 2017-18 and also found that the orders were passed by the AO. Thereafter, the assessee downloaded the said assessment order and filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 2 years and 7 months. The Ld.AR also further submitted that the new portal of the department had not allowed the assessee to file the appeal and therefore a grievance application was filed and the said grievance was rectified on 06/07/2022 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 07/09/2022. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that the assessee had not made any wilful delay in filing the appeals and prayed to condone the said delay and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue on Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 540/Bang/2025 merits and in accordance with law since the assessment order has also been made u/s. 144 of the Act. 6. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had not appeared before the AO as well as before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore, no lenience could be shown on them and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 8. We have perused the assessment order and from the findings given by the AO, we found that the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued by the AO and therefore the best judgment assessment was made u/s. 144 of the Act. We have considered the explanation offered by the assessee that all the communications were sent to the old email ID i.e. [e-mail] which was not used by the assessee for quite a long time and therefore the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued by the AO. Further, we have also considered the fact that the assessee is not an educated person and he has little knowledge about the income tax proceedings and therefore he has not verified the communications sent through the erstwhile email ID of the assessee which was not in use for a long time and satisfied that the assessee had not deliberately filed the appeal with a delay. The assessee being an uneducated person, the non-viewing of the old email ID could not be termed as a negligence on the part of the assessee but it can be cured by awarding some cost on the assessee. Therefore, in order to render substantial justice to the assessee, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on condition that the assessee should deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost in the account of the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. On such payment and the production of the payment of cost, we direct the AO to consider the issue afresh on merits and in accordance with law. It is also submitted by the assessee that the future communications may be sent to the assessee through the email ID mentioned in form 36 which is [e-mail]. We record the said submissions Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 540/Bang/2025 and direct the AO to send the communications to the said email ID. With the above directions we set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the AO. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice – President Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 12th February, 2026. /MS / 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 "