PRASANNA V GHOTAGE,BELGAUM vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and similar and for the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA 333/PAN/2025 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 as a lead case and facts narrated. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the mining business and has not filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 and a search and seizure action u/sec 132 of the Act was conducted on 29.09.2011 and the assessee has admitted profit of Rs. 2,59,40,766/- in his statement recorded on 25.10.2011. Subsequently, the A.O has passed the assessment order u/sec 144 r.w.s. 153A on 21.03.2014 determining a total income of Rs. 3,86,66,400/-. Further Assessing Officer(A.O) found that the income has escaped assessment and notice u/sec 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 after obtaining approval of the commissioner and the assessee filed a belated return on 28.11.2018 declaring a loss of Rs. Rs.3,72,84,146/- and the AO has rejected the return of income and adopted the earlier assessed income. Further On verification of bank credits and turnover, the .AO noticed unexplained credits amounting to Rs. 1,48,47,370/- and there was no proper explanations filed and made addition u/sec 69A of the Act. Further, the AO found that the assessee has suppressed sales and made addition of Rs. 2,19,66,420/- as income on account of under-invoicing and assessed the total income of Rs. 7,54,80,190/- and passed order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 31.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statements of facts and finding of the AO and issued notice of hearings and since there was partial compliance by the assessee to the notices, therefore, CIT(A) considering information on record has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the information of the proceedings and non compliance of notices before the CIT(A) was not intentional but circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and supported the facts with the affidavit of the assessee Further, the Ld.A.R submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported that the order the CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima Facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order, considering the facts that there is no proper compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee could not substantiate with the evidences in respect of claim and dismissed the appeal confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notice of hearings and there was partial compliance and thus, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. The Ld. A.R. mentioned that the reasons for no proper compliance in the appellate proceedings was not deliberate but circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and supported the facts with the affidavit of the assessee. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions made by the AO and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, we considering the facts, circumstances and principle of natural justice shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the disputed issues to the file the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for earlier disposal of appeal. And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 292 & 293/PAN/2025, ITA 92/PAN/2024 8. As the facts and circumstances in these three appeals are identical to ITA333/PAN/2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph6&7 would apply mutatis mutandis for these three appeals also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on the day of 22nd May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : May,2026. Abhishek mohan आिेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “DB” बेंच, पणजी/ DR, ITAT, “DB” Bench, Panaji. ग र्ड फ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, / ITAT, Panaji 4