DAROJI KATIGIHALLIMATH AMARESWARA,BALLARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALLARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 764/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 November 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-response to CIT(A) notices, decided to provide one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist also involved in selling water cans, deposited Rs. 16,33,000/- in cash into his bank account. He claimed the source was land sale proceeds and agricultural income. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained income under Section 68 and taxed it under Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit in the bank account was sufficiently explained, and whether the assessee was entitled to another opportunity before the appellate authority despite not responding to notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 22.11.2023Pronounced: 22.11.2023

O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice President :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 16.08.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Assessee is an agriculturist. He is also involved in the sale of water cans in and around Bellary. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 22.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,80,864/- and agricultural income of Rs.5,50,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. During the course of assessment, it was noticed that assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.16,33,000/- in his bank account held with State Bank of Mysore. The assessee submitted that the source of the said cash deposit was from sale proceeds from land and agricultural income. Since assessee did not explain the source of cash deposit during the course of assessment proceedings, the same was added under section 68 of the Act as unexplained income. The AO also invoked special rate of taxation as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte since there was no response to the hearing notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A).

4.

Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the hearing notice issued from the Office of the CIT(A) was sent to email of the assessee. It was submitted that since assessee was not very computer literate, he had not checked his emails. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one opportunity may be provided to the assessee.

5.

Learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

6.

I have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. Assessee has not appeared before the AO nor before the CIT(A). I strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one more opportunity ought to be provided to the assessee. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →