DAROJI KATIGIHALLIMATH AMARESWARA,BALLARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALLARI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.764/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Daroji Katigihallimath Vs. ITO, Amareswara Shastry, Ward – 2, Sy. No.325, Poornima Enterprises, Bellary. Madapur Road, Yelubenchi Village, Ballari – 583 115. PAN : BMYPS 2935 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing : 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023
O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President : 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.
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
ITA No.764/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 3
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.
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).
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.
Learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
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.
ITA No.764/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 3
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/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 22.11.2023. /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.
