RANGANATHA TARIKERE SIDDAPPA,TARIKERE vs. ITO-WARD-1-CHIKKAMAGALURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT ITA No.:1661/Bang/2025 Assessment Year :2017-2018 Ranganatha Tarikere Siddappa Belaku Nilaya behind Indian oil Petrol Bund apposite to SIM ITO - Ward – 1 college Girinagar Tarikere, Chikkamagaluru Vs. Tarikere Karnataka - 577228 PAN:AVNPS2299F APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : None : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue by Counsel for the Dept

Date of Hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18-05-2026

ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. ITA No. 1661/Bang/2025 is filed by Mr. Ranganatha Tarikere Siddappa (the assessee/appellant) for assessment year 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Chikkamagaluru (the learned AO) on 26.09.2019 was dismissed for non-compliance before the learned CIT Appeal.

ITA Nos.: 1661/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 According to Form No. 36 the appellate order was passed on 1st July 2. 2024 however the appeal was filed on 28th July 2025 which has caused the delay of 301 days. The assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay stating that the notices were served on the address where the brother of the assessee lives and this has resulted into an ex parte assessment order. Further when contacted a consultant, the consultant put his own e-mail id at the time of filing of the appeal. It was stated that assessee is a school dropout and is not aware about the Income Tax Law. He has a severe health problem and is undergoing dialysis for three times a week and has to undergo bypass surgery. Due to this the assessee could not file an appeal before the ITAT in time and came to know about the disposal of appeal only on 15th July 2025 where the Income Tax Officer Chikkamagaluru has sent the hard copy along with the order of the CIT Appeal. Therefore, there is a delay forfiling of the appeal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing but assessee moved an adjournment petition stating that his both the kidneys have failed and therefore he could not appear. The assessee prayed that this petition may be considered favourably. 4. The learned Departmental Representative was heard. 5. Due to the prolonged illness of the assessee, his education background, and subsequent health issues, we find that the delay in filing of the appeal is for sufficient cause hence condoned. 6. With respect to the facts of the case we find that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 23,70,900/- during demonetization period in saving bank account with Vijaya Bank. The assessee did not file any return of income and therefore notice under Section 142(1) was issued. The assessee was issued various notices, the direction of the Joint Commissioner under Section 144 was also obtained. As assessee did not furnish any reply, the assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed. The assessee was found to be running a bar and a restaurant in the name of Ranganatha Bar and Restaurant wherein it

ITA Nos.: 1661/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 was found that he is making a cashsales. The aggregate credit in the bank statement are Rs. 1,28,01,396/-. The learned AO determined the 8% of the above gross receipt as income of the assessee and determined the business income of Rs. 10,24,111/-. He further found that during demonetization period the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 23,70,900/- and AO found one more account wherein the deposit of Rs. 4,76,600/- was made for which no explanation was given therefore Rs. 28,50,550/- was added under Section 69 of the Act. The assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act on 26.09.2019. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT Appeal who held that assessee was issued notices for the hearing but no response is received and accordingly he confirmed the addition. 7. Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that assessee is stated to be in the business of running of bar and deposited a substantial sum of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- mostly in cash against which the learned AO made an addition at the rate of 8% as business income. Further the amount of cash deposited of Rs. 28,50,000/- also in cash was added to the total income of the assessee under Section 69. There is no evidence that the amount of cash deposited in the bank account is not arising out of the business of the assessee of running of the bar. In fact the assessment order is passed under Section 144 of the Act which was not attended by the assessee because of severe health issues and further before us also it is stated that both the kidneys of the assessee have failed. Therefore we find that assessee did not represent himself before the learned lower authorities because of the severe health issues and deserves one more opportunity of hearing. In the result therefore in the interest of justice we restore the whole appeal back to the learned Assessing Officer and assessee may furnish the relevant details which may be examined and after hearing the issue may be decided on the merits. 8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.: 1661/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 Order pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2026.

Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) VICE-PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 18th May, 2026. *VM* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore