RAVI DORESWAMI ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1192/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ravi Doreswamy against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) concerning a penalty imposed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act for underreporting income, which was a consequence of misreporting. The assessee had initially filed a return declaring a higher income and later revised it, declaring a significantly lower income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and discrepancies in reported salary incomes from two companies led to the imposition of a penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the initial appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee, who later claimed that the notice might have ended up in the spam folder, preventing him from responding.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772125 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIVEKPRASADA P
• Keywords: Revised return; Salary income; TDS
• Section: 144; 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1192/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravi Doreswamy, No.28/1, 17th Cross, Kanakanagar R T Nagar Post Bangalore – 560 032, Karnataka PAN : AJMPD 8501 E Vs. ITO, Ward – 5(3)(1), Raichur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri.Vivekprasada P, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte Order passed by the CIT(A) vide DIN &Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1075139271(1) dated 27.03.2025. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.04.2017 declaring gross total income of Rs.35,89,535/- claiming deduction under chapter VI A of Rs.1,13,132/-. Assessee has declared salary of Rs.37,73,323/- and loss from 1,83,788/- and assessee claimed TDS of Rs.8,94,454/-. Subsequently, assessee revised his return of income on 28.01.2018 declaring gross total income of Rs.14,08,951/- and total income of Rs.12,97,430/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI A of Rs.1,11,525/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1192/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 In the revised return, assessee admitted income from salary of Rs.15,92,739/- and loss from house property of Rs.1,83,788/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Assessee has received salary income from Mindtree Ltd., and Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, information under section 133(6) of the Act was called for. As per the information received, the salary income was assessed at Rs.37,73,323/- and assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. The AO imposed penalty under section 270A of the Act and passed Order on 25.03.2022 for under reporting income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. 3. Aggrieved from the above penalty Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 23.04.2022. The learned CIT(A) issued various notices for compliance in support of the appeal filed by the assessee but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Therefore, he dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of the material available before him. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee is a salaried person. Because of the revised return, the AO imposed penalty under section 270A of the Act and penalty Order was passed on 25.03.2022. The notice issued under section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A) might have settled in the spam folder of the email. Therefore, assessee could not represent his case and requested and undertook that if a chance is given, assessee shall substantiate his case with necessary documents. The ld. Dr relied on the order of lower authorities. Considering the rival submissions, the assessee could not represent his case for want of proper service of notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) as explained by the assessee. In the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1192/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member- Bangalore. Dated: 28.08.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "