SAMI KHAN ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2474/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sami Khan, the appellant, who contested the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC regarding the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was the non-compliance with alleged hearing notices and the subsequent ex-parte appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee's income was reassessed due to undisclosed contract receipts and capital gains from property sales, which led to a significant tax liability. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not adequately represented or given a fair opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A), leading to the decision to remit the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847225 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Bangalore
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: H. GURUSWAMY
• Keywords: Business income; Capital Gains
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"ITA No.2474/Bang/2025 Sami Khan, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2474/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sami Khan 609, 12th Cross, 29th Main Road BTM Layout Bengaluru 560 076 PAN NO : AMRPK7244F Vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1) Bengaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri H. Guruswamy, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30/05/2025 vide DIN and Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076581347(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) for the AY 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. The impugned order u/s. 250 of the Act dated: 30/05/2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in passing an Appellate Order mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the alleged Hearing Notices dated 03/04/2025, 24/04/25025 and 16/05/2025 without appreciating the fact that the assessee were unaware of the notice so issued. 3. The ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in passing and ex-parte Appellate orders without adjudicating the Merits of the case and also the specific Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2474/Bang/2025 Sami Khan, Bengaluru Page 2 of 5 grounds urged disputing the validity of notices said to have been issued under clause (b), (d) of Section 148A and also notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing sufficient and adequate opportunities except providing only 50 days time. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened for the reason that assessee had contract receipts of Rs.1,35,550/-, tax collection at source from scrap u/s. 206C of the Act for Rs.30,13,000/- and also sold immovable property of Rs.80,00,000/- during the FY 2014-15 relevant for AY 2015-16, however, the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter, the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30/03/2022 with prior approval of Pr.CCIT recording satisfaction that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30/03/2022. The statutory notices u/s. 143(2) as well as u/s. 142(1) of the Act were also issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee finally filed his reply on 01/12/2022 and submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 09/06/2022 & his source of income during the AY 2015-16 was from business in plastic scrap and from capital gain on transfer of house property. The assessee had also submitted computation of income, Form-26AS, details of bank accounts and explained the sources of credit entries/ cash deposits in to the bank accounts. The AO thereafter issued another show cause notice on 27/01/2023 giving the final opportunity with regards to the following proposed additions:- Addition on account of business receipts Rs. 2,65,403/- Addition on account of capital gains Rs.80,00,000/- In response to SCN dated 27/01/2023, the assessee did not furnish any reply and accordingly the AO completed the assessment as below:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2474/Bang/2025 Sami Khan, Bengaluru Page 3 of 5 a) Addition on account of contract receipt:- The AO found that the assessee had declared gross receipts of Rs.28,83,404/- whereas as per the Form-26AS, the gross receipt were Rs.30,13,257/- from scrap and Rs.1,35,550/- from contract receipts (Total : 31,48,807/-). Accordingly, the difference of Rs.2,65,403/- in gross receipts was added to the income of the assessee as the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus cast upon him. b) Addition on account of short term capital gains:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had declared the short term capital gain of Rs.9,23,694/- on the sale of property of Rs.80,00,000/- but no details/ documentary evidence had been provided by the assessee regarding the purchase value, cost of improvement and other expenses despite several notices and therefore held that the genuineness and correctness of the capital gain remain unexplained. As the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus cast upon him, the entire amount of Rs.80,00,00/- was treated as income from short term capital gain and accordingly, added the balance amount of Rs.70,76,306/- (80,00,000 – 9,23,694) as income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.84,48,079/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act dated 14/02/2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2474/Bang/2025 Sami Khan, Bengaluru Page 4 of 5 5. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee despite issuing 3 (Three) notices by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not respond or complied with any of the notices. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the assessee had not made any efforts to offer any explanation and even not bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC find no infirmity in the action of the AO and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Again aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee could not represent his case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to substantiate his claim in the interest of justice and equity. 8. The ld. D.R. on the other hand vehemently submitted that the assessee partly submitted the documents/ record before the AO and also did not respond to any of the notices before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly prayed that the appeal may be dismissed in limine as the assessee did not bother to pursue his case before both the Authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC we observed that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed the ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that in absence of satisfactory explanation, he find no infirmity in the action of AO and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee could not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2474/Bang/2025 Sami Khan, Bengaluru Page 5 of 5 represent his case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to grant one more opportunity before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the interest of justice. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deemed it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide a fresh in accordance with law. Needless to say reasonable opportunity is being heard must be granted to the assessee. We also make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for 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 23rd Mar, 2026 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 23rd Mar, 2026. 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 "