SRI. VENKATBABU SRINIVAS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 285/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 June 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the NFAC for fresh consideration on merits. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case after failing to comply with previous notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's unsecured loans increased significantly, and cash deposits were made during demonetization, with the assessee failing to provide proper explanations to the AO. The NFAC confirmed the AO's additions due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained unsecured loans and demonetization deposits are sustainable. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the NFAC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Hearing: 31.05.2023Pronounced: 12.06.2023

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 22.3.2023.

2.

In this case, the assessee filed the return of income electronically on 31.3.2018 declaring income of Rs.54,40,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was issued on 14.8.2018. Later, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates. While framing the assessment, the AO observed that there was increase in unsecured loans from Rs.13,12,65,133/- to Sri Venkatbabu Srinivas, Bangalore

Page 2 of 3 Rs.107,29,21,492/-. The assessee has not explained this properly before the AO. Hence, he made an addition of Rs.94,16,56,359/-. Similarly, the assessee has deposited cash during demonetization period into his bank account to the tune of Rs.1,80,88,500/-. The assessee has also not explained the source of this deposit. Hence, the AO has made an addition u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee went in appeal before NFAC who has given notices of hearing to the assessee and there was no compliance as follows: Sl.No. Notice Fixed for Way of Result issuing hearing Service date of Notice 1 23.12.2020 07.01.2021 By Not uploaded e-mail any written submission 2 13.02.2023 20.02.2023 By Not uploaded e-mail any written submission 3 06.03.2023 13.03.2023 By Not uploaded e-mail any written submission 4 16.03.2023 22.03.2023 By Not uploaded e-mail any written submission

Hence, the NFAC confirmed the order of the AO. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 2.1 Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is not conversant with ITBA Portal. Hence, assessee is not able to represent his case before NFAC and prayed that an opportunity may be given since the order was passed by the NFAC ex-parte.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit the issue to the file of NFAC to consider the issues on merit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, all the issues in dispute are remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh

Sri Venkatbabu Srinivas, Bangalore

Page 3 of 3 consideration. Since we have remitted the issue to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration, we will refrain from adjudicating various grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2023

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →