ALPANAYAKANAHALLY CHANNAVEERAPPA JAGADEESH,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE 1(1), MYSORE, MYSORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.:1424/Bang/2025 Assessment Year:2011-2012 Alpanayakanahally Channaveerappa Jagadeesh, Asst. Commissioner of D No. 104, 2nd B Cross, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Nivedithanagara, Ramakrishna Vs. Mysore Nagar, Mysore 570022 PAN: AEDPJ9237R APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sri. Ravishankar S.V, Advocate : Sri. N. Balusamy - JCIT Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 23-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27-04-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 1424/Bang/2025 for assessment year 2011-12 is filed by Alpanayakanahally Channaveerappa Jagadeesh against the order of the CIT (Appeal) in National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi dated 23rd July 2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee on 8th September 2021 against the assessment order passed under 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31st March 2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) and TPS Mysore (the learned Assessing Officer) was dismissed.

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 10 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us as per the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, NFAC under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed at Rs. 98,47,984/- as against the returned income of Rs.10,08,213/- for the impugned assessment year 2011-12, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the appellant has not maintained books of accounts and reliance upon the statement of affairs was not justified, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The authorities below ought to have accepted the estimated income at 8% of gross receipts as returned by the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Grounds on addition of unexplained cash deposits, Rs.47,73,979/-:

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 10 a. The authorities below have failed to appreciate that the cash deposits is from the earlier withdrawals and are not justified in making additions of Rs.47,73,979/- as unexplained deposits, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in stating that the source of the withdrawals was not explained, which is contrary to the satisfaction of the AO in the original assessment, when the cash deposits were held to have not been explained, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The learned Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the credits were not explained, when the entire credits has suffered TDS and appearing in the Form26AS, thus stood explained, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 10 relying upon the books of accounts certified and did not reflect the true state of affairs of the appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Grounds on addition of car loan, Rs. 4792/-: a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,792/- as unexplained loans, since the same has been paid off in the subsequent year, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b. Without prejudice, the car loan was a secured loan and subsequently repaid, there could be no addition on the premise that the loan outstanding was not repaid, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A, Rs.61,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case.

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 10 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 12. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is the addition of Rs. 47,73,979/- on account of unexplained cash deposit and addition of Rs. 4,792/- on account of car loan. 4. The briefly stated facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who filed his Return of Income on 07.09.2012 at a total income of Rs. 10,08,213/-. The assessment order was passed on 7th March 2014 at a total income of Rs. 99,28,001/- wherein the addition of Rs. 89,19,789/- was made. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT-A as per order dated 29.09.2016 confirmed the same. 6. The assessee approached the ITAT which restored the whole issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Therefore, the AO was directed to reexamine the addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 47.73 lakhs, amount of addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account unexplained sundry creditors and addition of Rs. 84000 being unproved HDFC Bank Loan. 7. The learned Assessing Officer passed the order in pursuance of the direction of ITAT on 31st March 2021. The only relief the Assessing Officer could grant is against the addition of 84000 of HDFC Loan, addition to the extent of Rs. 4,792/- was retained. Total income was assessed at Rs. 98,47,984/-.

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 10 8. The assessee approached the learned CIT-A give an assessee seven opportunities, however none of them were availed therefore the learned CIT (Appeal), he confirmed the addition made by the AO. 9. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned Authorized Representative submitted a detailed paper book containing 79 pages and referred to page No. 73-77 of the paper book of affidavit for admission of the additional evidences which is the copy of the various letter issued by the Karnataka Bank regarding deposit and withdrawal of the cash, certificates from HDFC Bank etc. The learned Authorized Representative Shri V Ravishankar submitted that the appeal may be decided on the merits of the case. 10. The learned AR was drawn the attention of the note of the registry that appeal is time-barred by 268 days to which the learned Authorized Representative referred to the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. He extensively referred to the same and submitted that the order of the learned CIT (Appeal) was passed on 23rd July 2024 and same was not served on the assessee. He submitted that this is also the reason that the CIT(Appeal) stated to have issued 10 notices, but assessee could not respond to any of them. The reason being that all the notices were served on an e-mail id which was not at all in use by the assessee. He further referred to the history of the case and submitted that the assessment year involved year in is 2011-12 which was pertaining to before 13 years. Thus, the e-mail address given in the earlier correspondences were used for issuing the notices, such email is not in use by assessee. He further stated that when he received the intimation in the month of June 2025 about the outstanding demand which was to be recovered, he came to know that the learned CIT(Appeal) has passed an ex parte order. Immediately he contacted his lawyer, and the appeal was filed on 25th of June 2025. He referred to the date of communication of the order on 20th June 2025 therefore according to him there is no delay in filing the appeal.

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 10 11. He submits that though the order was passed on 23rd July 2024 by the CIT (Appeal), but it was received by him only on 20th June 2025 and only on receipt of the order could he have filed the appeal. He submits that the limitation always runs from the date of the order received by the assessee and not by the date of the order. According to him there is no delay in filing the appeal. 12. The learned DR vehemently submitted that the order passed on 23rd of July 2024 which is immediately served on ITBA portal to the assessee and therefore the claim of the assessee is unfounded. 13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. In this case in form no 36, assessee stated the learned CIT (Appeal) passed the order on 23rd July 2024 which was stated to have been received by the assessee on 20th June 2025. According to him, from that date the delay needs to be condoned, if any. The appeal was filed on 25th June 2025, thus as per the averment made by the assessee in Form No. 36 at Point No. 3(C), if found uncontroverted, it is apparent that there is no delay in filling the appeal. However assessee out of abundant caution has filed the application for condonation of delay stating that, assuming while denying, the order was received on 23rd July 2024 the delay is only for the reason that assessee was not aware of the appellate order which he came to know only in the month of June 2025 when the communication for recovery of demand was made. He immediately filed the appeal as he came to know on that day only that there was an ex parte order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority. He has also given that perhaps the order might have gone on e-mail id, which was earlier given by the assessee, but which was not in use at present by the assessee. We find that the revenue could not show any evidence that assessee received the order of the learned First Appellate Authority on 23rd July 2024. It is also not the case of the assessee that he received an order on 23rd July 2025. It is emphatically stated by the assessee that he received that order only

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 10 in the month of June 2025, immediately on 25th of June the appeal was filed. It was further stated that an e-mail was given not of the assessee but of the consultant. This e-mail was used undoubtedly by theassessee, for return filing,the software used by Advocate did not require to log them into an ITBA Portal. This fact remains unchallenged that assessee did not receive the order on 23rd July 2024 but in the month of June 2025 which is stated in Form No. 36, the condonation petition filed by the assessee is also perused and we find that there is a sufficient cause which has caused the delay of 268 days in filing of the appeal, if any. Therefore, we admit the appeal by condoning the delay. 14. The briefly stated fact shows that the learned CIT (Appeal) has issued 10 notices to the assessee which are mentioned at paragraph No. 5 of the appellate order and none of them is replied to. The reason for not availing the opportunity of hearing is identical to what the assessee has stated for the condonation of delay in filing appeal before us, that the e-mail id used thereon was not accessed by the assessee but by the lawyer who filed the Return of Income. Therefore, as we have already held that there is a sufficient cause in filing the appeal before the ITAT, for the same reason, the assessee remained unrepresented before the learned CIT (Appeal). 15. Before us the assessee has submitted a paper book wherein, he has also shown an application for admission of additional evidences. As these evidences are new and was not made available by the assessee before the learned lower authorities, the application for its admission was made. The additional evidences are in the form of certificate issued by the various banks showing that the addition made in the hands of the assessee as claimed by the assessee is incorrect. Such evidences are in fact the third party evidences which was required to be produced by the assessee now, before the revenue authorities because the explanation given by the assessee was brushed aside without making any enquiry. Thus, the assessee now had made an

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 10 endeavor to produce these bank certificates to support his contentions. As the learned lower authorities did not ask the assessee to produce these certificates before them and as assessee was under belief that his explanation would be accepted, the assessee could not produce these evidences. Thus, there was a sufficient reason for the assessee in failure to produce those evidences before lower authorities. Hence, we admit those evidences as stated in the application. 16. As the above evidences requires verification and further if the issue would be restored to the file of the learned CIT-A, he would also have to ask for the remand report from the Assessing Officer, therefore in the interest of justice, which will also save the time of the revenue, we restore these appeal back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee along with the additional evidences produced and decide those afresh. The assessee is also directed to submit the required information as called for by the revenue authorities. The learned AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after giving assessee an opportunity of hearing. 17. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 27th April 2026. *VM*

ITA Nos.: 1424/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 10 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore