POTHULURU VENKATASWAMY SHANKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income. His case was selected for limited scrutiny for examining the cash deposits made during the year. Notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Subsequently, a show cause notice was also issued.

As against the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 59 days. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices for hearing on 5 occasions and the assessee had not submitted any written submissions nor filed any supporting documents. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had concluded the appeal hearing and dismissed the appeal as no substantial evidence were placed by the assessee before him.

As against the said order, the assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the information available with the AO is not correct and therefore on that basis, the addition u/s. 69A could not be made. The Ld.AR further submitted that on two occasions, they sought for an adjournment and on two occasions, they filed application to set aside the delay and therefore without granting further opportunity, the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is illegal and therefore liable to be set aside. The Ld.AR also filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of the additional evidences in which the assessee had enclosed the copy of the confirmation letter given by the Canara Bank and the bank account details and the financial statements along with the ITR-V for A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that the assessment order requires reconsideration and therefore prayed to grant an opportunity to the assessee to place all the documents before the AO.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is not cooperating with the department in spite of several notices issued by the AO as well as by the

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have considered that the assessment order is an order u/s. 144 of the Act. The said order has been passed based on the information that the assessee had deposited cash into his Canara Bank account. The AO had made the assessment u/s. 144 since the assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore treated the deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had admittedly, not appeared but on four occasions some response was made by the assessee.

We have also considered the application filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules for admission of the additional evidences which were not placed before any of the authorities. We have also considered the additional evidences furnished along with the said application. In the said application, the assessee had furnished a certificate from the Canara Bank stating that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 67,910/- in his savings bank account during the demonetisation period and in the other period, a sum of Rs. 10,76,900/- was deposited. When we compare the said certificate with the assessment order, there are lot of variations and therefore it could not be presumed that the AO had sufficient materials for making the said additions. But unfortunately, the assessee had also not furnished the said details before the lower authorities.

Considering the said facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of both the authorities and remit this issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and the AO is also directed to consider the additional evidences which are now filed before us while adjudicating the issue.