SRI. BILESHIVALE MUDDANNA GOVARDHANA MURTHY,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

PER BENCH:

These appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 dated 8.8.2022. Since the issue is common in all the appeals except figures, we reproduce herewith grounds of appeal in ITA No.76/Bang/2023 as follows: Grounds raised 1. That the impugned order is opposed to facts and law in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Appellant

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 2 of 9 2 The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the ld. AO without appreciating the fact that a. The assessment order passed u/s 153A is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. b. Where search u/s 132 of conducted in connection with a person other than the Appellant then the Appellant is to be assessed as per the provisions of section 153C and not section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appellant’s appeal ex parte is untenable and bad in law and in doing so he failed to appreciate the fac that the appellant had compelling circumstances that were beyond his control which prevented him from making necessary representation before the ld. CIT(A) 4. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in law and facts and circumstances as he ought to have adjudicated the appeal on its merits. 5. Without prejudice to Ground 2 and 3, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in taxing agricultural income under the head ‘Other Sources’ in as much as he failed to appreciate that the same was backed with requisite documentary evidence and in doing so was not in line with the provisions under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Tax effect: Rs.22,66,819/- plus applicable interest

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 3 of 9

return was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. In the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 a sum of Rs.10,53,333/- was added to the returned income. This addition pertained to income declared by the assessee in the course of search proceedings but not offered to tax in the return of income. Agricultural income was accepted as declared by the assessee. Thereafter, a fresh search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 1.10.2013. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 5.11.2014 requiring the assessee to file a return of income. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee vide letter dated 30.9.2015 submitted that the original return of income filed on 20.12.2010 be treated as return of income in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. The assessee has now been completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order dated 23.3.2016 various additions have been made to the returned income. Against the additions in various assessment years, the assessee had earlier preferred appeals before ld. CIT(A), Bangalore and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all the appeals on this issue by ex-parte order dated 8.8.2022. Against this assessee filed appeals before this Tribunal. At the outset, it is noticed that there was a delay of 129 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal as the assessee is required to file these appeals on or before 7.10.2022. However, these appeals were filed by the assessee on 13.2.2023. Thus, there was a delay of 129 days in filing all these 7 appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee filed condonation petition with affidavit stating as follows:

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 4 of 9

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 5 of 9

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 6 of 9

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 7 of 9

2.1 Accordingly, the ld. A.R. prayed that these appeals may be admitted in the interest of justice and adjudicated on merit.

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 8 of 9 within prescribed time and there was no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of assessee in delayed filing of present appeals and he was not aware of the passing of these orders by ld. CIT(A) during his imprisonment and when he came to know about passing of orders by revenue authorities, he immediately took steps to consult the Counsel to file appeals before this Tribunal and filed the appeals on 13.2.2023. In our opinion, the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserve to be preferred and the assessee deserve to be heard on merit of the case. Therefore, in exercise of power u/s 253(5) of the Act, the delay in filing the present appeals is condoned as there was sufficient cause for not presenting appeals within the prescribed time and the appeals are hereby admitted for adjudication on merits.

4.1 The assessee has raised various grounds on merit of the addition made by lower authorities. Since the orders passed by ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, we are not dwelling upon the issues on merit. We remit the entire issue in dispute before us to the file of ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after giving opportunities of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2023

Sd/- Sd/- (Beena Pillai) (Chandra Poojari) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Bangalore, Dated 18th May, 2023. VG/SPS

ITA Nos.76 to 82/Bang/2023 Sri Bileshivale Muddanna Govardhana Murthy, Bangalore

Page 9 of 9 Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.