SAKREPATNA BORE GOWDA RAMALINGU,SAKRAYAPATTANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR, CHICKMAGALUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 894/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine cash deposits and withdrawals. The AO made an addition under section 69A for excess credits over withdrawals. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-response to hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under section 69A was sustainable and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Mounesh Sowkar, Advocate, Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 894/Bang/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Shri Sakrepatna Bore Gowda Ramalingu, #1, Society Road, The Income Tax Sakrayapattana, Officer, Kadur Taluk, Ward – 1, Chikkamagalur Chickmagalur. Vs. Karnataka – 577 135. PAN: BCVPR9380N

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Mounesh Sowkar, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for the Dept. Date of Hearing : 30-04-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29-06-2026 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 02/09/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and earned income from house property and agriculture. The assessee filed his return of income on 05/09/2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposits and withdrawal. Notices u/s. 143(2) as well as u/s. 142(1) were issued and the assessee also filed his response. The AO

Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 894/Bang/2026 based on analysis of the bank accounts treated the excess credits over the withdrawal as unexplained cash u/s. 69A of the Act.

3.

As against the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the several hearing notices issued.

4.

As against the ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had furnished all the details for the cash deposits and cash withdrawals but unfortunately, the AO had made the addition u/s. 69A of the Act, which is not sustainable. Further, the Ld.AR submitted that all the notices were not viewed by him and therefore prayed an opportunity.

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that in spite of the several notices, the assessee had not appeared and therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7.

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

8.

We have perused the assessment order and the addition was made u/s. 69A of the Act based on the cash deposits and withdrawals. We have also seen that several explanations were offered by the assessee before the AO in spite of that addition was made. The assessee challenged the addition but he has not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution. Admittedly, the Ld.CIT(A) had not considered the issue on merits.

9.

In such circumstances, we are inclined to grant one opportunity to the assessee to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo

Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 894/Bang/2026 consideration on merits, after hearing the assessee. We also direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- by way of cost, for remitting this issue to the Ld.CIT(A), to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 29th June, 2026. /MS /

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →