KASTURI DHANYAKUMAR BHUPAL,BELGAUM KARNATKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, BELGAUM, BELGAUM KARNATAKA

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.

2 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

“1. The order passed by the learned AO & Ld. CIT(A), to the extent prejudicial to the Assessee, is erroneous both on facts and in law and therefore bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in partly confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O., and the impugned order is contrary to law, facts and principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. A.O. & CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte and confirming the addition without properly appreciating the material already available on record, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining the addition on assumptions and presumptions, without calling for a remand report or conducting any independent verification, despite having powers co-terminus with that of the Ld. A.O. 5. The Ld. A.O & CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of ₹10,50,000/- under section 69A, without appreciating that the cash deposits during the

3 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

demonetisation period were out of regular business receipts and cash balance as per books of account. 6. The Ld. A.O & CIT(A) has erred in restricting relief to Rs.2,00,000/- on an arbitrary and ad-hoc basis, without any statutory authority and without identifying any specific defect in the audited books of account maintained under section 44AB. 7. The Ld.AO and CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the income is not liable to be taxed in the hands of the Appellant; 8. In the absence of satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements of section 69A, the Ld.AO and CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition under the said section; 9. The Ld. A.O & CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the explanation relating to agricultural income without appreciating that such income was consistently disclosed in earlier and subsequent years and without bringing any contrary evidence on record. 10. The Ld. A.O & CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant was not authorised to receive cash during demonetisation, without appreciating the applicable RBI and Government notifications permitting receipt of specified bank notes in the course of business. 11. The Ld. A.O & CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of tax under section 115BBE on the sustained addition, which being consequential, is liable to be deleted. 12. The Ld. A.O & CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C, which are purely consequential and unsustainable. 13. The Appellant therefore prays that the addition of ₹10,50,000/- sustained under section 69A be deleted in full and appropriate relief be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

5 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

Rs.12,50,000/- being unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act deposited during the demonetization period. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and the application for admission of additional evidences furnished by the assessee before this Bench. In this regard, we find that the above re-assessment order and first appellate order were passed ex-parte i.e. u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, since the assessee being a senior citizen could not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC due to health issues. It is the claim of the counsel of the assessee

6 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

that the cash deposit of Rs.12,50,000/- was duly considered in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee, however, the relevant documents could not be furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Now, the assessee is filing certain additional evidences in the shape of cash book and other relevant details in support of its contentions and requests before this Bench to admit these additional evidences for proper adjudication of the present appeal. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we admit the additional evidences, however, the same needs verification at the level of the Assessing Officer, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to

7 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to furnish reply, submission, documents and additional evidences in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 11th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 11th August, 2026. Digitally signed by Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.11 18:16:37 +05'30'

8 ITA No.10/PAN/2026

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Panaji.