PUTTARAJU HEMAVATHI ,BENGALURU V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 917/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Puttaraju Hemavathi, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had dismissed her earlier appeal due to a delay of 147 days in filing. The delay was attributed to the assessee's medical conditions and unawareness of the ongoing proceedings, as notices were sent to an old address and she was not registered on the Income Tax portal. The AO had previously treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,80,000 as short-term capital gains due to non-response from the assessee regarding the sale of immovable property. The ITAT found the explanation for the delay plausible and sufficient, leading to the condonation of the delay and remittance of the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793420 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: GANA; NOT CONDONING
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Puttaraju Hemavathi 113, 1st Cros, 14th Block BDA Layout Nagarbhavi Bengaluru 560 072 PAN NO : AMDPH5733N Vs. ITO Ward 6(3)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Gana, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 5.6.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065398501(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 2 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 3 of 11 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit for condonation of delay dated 19/04/2025 along with a medical certificate issued by HIP&KNEE Clinic, Bangalore, stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 4 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 5 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 6 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 7 of 11 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 8 of 11 4. On going through the above, the main reason cited for the delay in filing was solely attributable to the medical condition of the assessee, who suffered a leg fracture in July 2024 and after partial recovery, she again underwent wrist surgery in November 2024. Unfortunately, due to another accident, there wasa further delay in filing the appeal, which prevented the assessee from preparing the necessary documents and complying with the deadline for filing the appeal. 4.1 Perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, which prevented her from filing the appeal within the specified period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. Now, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. As per the specific information available with the department, the assessee had entered into a transaction of sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.55,80,000/-. Based on this information, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee had not filed the return even in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and did not furnish the details/information/documents as called for with regard to the immovable property sold during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. In absence of details required to compute capital gains arising from sale of immovable property, such as cost of acquisition, date of acquisition, improvements, if any made to the property, expenses if any incurred, the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,80,000/- was treated as short term capital gains in the hands of the assessee and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 9 of 11 accordingly the AO concluded the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on a total income of Rs.55,80,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 147 days and did not admit the appeal for adjudication, as it is a delayed appeal and not filed within the time limit prescribed, and further, in his opinion, the reasons provided by the assessee do not fall within the ambit of sufficient cause for delay. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 147 days due to assessee’s unawareness of the ongoing proceedings due to non- registration on the Income Tax portal and the notices being sent to the old address and thus, the assessee was completely unaware of the passing of the assessment order and prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may be condoned. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that as the case of the assessee was not heard on merits before both the authorities below, the issues in disputes may be remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. 8. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the order of AO is ex parte, and AO completed the assessment proceedings u/s 144, r.w.s. 147 of the Act and by treating the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 10 of 11 entire sales consideration amounting to Rs.55,80,000/- as short term capital gain. Further, it is also an undisputed fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On going through the reasons for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we are of the considered opinion that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The main reason as cited by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was that due to the non-registration on the Income Tax portal and the notices being sent to the old address, the assessee was completely unaware of the notices as well as the order passed u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation applicable is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, which prevented her from filing the appeal within the specified date before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 9.1 It is an undisputed fact that assessee could not represent her case before the AO. Accordingly, the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the entire sale consideration of Rs.55,80,000/- was treated as short term capital gain. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that one more opportunity may be granted before the AO to substantiate her claim, as the assessee could not represent her case before the AO. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law.Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the documents/records/ financials/reports/information Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.917/Bang/2025 Puttaraju Hemavathi, Bengaluru Page 11 of 11 to substantiate her claim. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th Sept, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 26th Sept, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "