BELLODI SOMASHEKARAPPA BASAVARAJESHWARI,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 852/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 December 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present her case, as the ex-parte order was passed due to non-receipt of notices by the representative.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in old currency notes during demonetization. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 9,71,000/- to the total income, disallowing cash withdrawals made over a year prior as the source. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of unexplained cash deposits. Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing
Hearing: 06.12.2023Pronounced: 06.12.2023

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 19.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

The solitary issue that is raised is whether CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs.9,71,000/- under section 69A of the Act.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 25.01.2018 declaring income of Rs.3,22,750/- under the head ‘salary’ and ‘income from other sources’. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny for the purpose of verifying the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in old notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- during the demonetization period. The AO directed the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. The assessee submitted that cash deposits are out of earlier cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs.20,28,000/- (withdrawals on 03.01.2015, 26.11.2015 and 01.12.2015). The AO held that cash withdrawals were almost more than one year prior to the date of cash deposits and the same cannot be the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The AO, however, granted the benefit of cash withdrawal made on 08.11.2016 amounting to Rs.5,29,000/- and balance of Rs.9,71,000/- was added to the total income under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order since notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) was not responded to by the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted before the CIT(A) that assessee had given the email Id of her representative and the representative did not take note of the notices issued by the office of the CIT(A) nor was the assessee intimated of the same. The learned AR submitted that in the interest of justice, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present her case.

6.

The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee had provided the email Id of her representative before the CIT(A). It was submitted that since the representative before the CIT(A) did not respond to the hearing notices sent from the Office of the CIT(A), the impugned order has been passed ex-parte. On perusal of Form 35 [Form for filing before the CIT(A)], we find that the email address is not that of the assessee but that of the representative of the assessee. In Form 36 (Form of appeal before the Tribunal), email address of the assessee has been given. We are of the view that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee. The learned AR before the Tribunal had submitted that he shall make sure that assessee shall represent her case once the matter is restored to AO or CIT(A). Taking note of the undertaking given by the learned AR, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). Assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →