SRINIVASA,CHICKBALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPURA

Based on the information received through insight portal, it was noticed that the assessee has made certain financial transactions but has not filed his return of income required under section 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made similar submissions in addition to the bank statements. The learned CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidence and confirmed the Order of the learned AO.

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us by raising following grounds:

At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative [in short ‘AR’] submitted that the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to submit the documents before the learned CIT(A). He further submitted that notice was issued on 27.11.2025 and the Order was passed on 19.12.2025 within a span of 3 weeks. He further prayed for one more opportunity before the learned CIT(A) with a direction to learned CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence furnished by the assessee.

Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative [in short ‘DR’] duly relying on the orders of the Revenue authorities submitted that assessee was provided various opportunities by the learned CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to respond. He also submitted that the assessee also did not furnish the required documents as requested by the learned AO and therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be sustained.

We heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee being a non-filer, however filed his return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act by declaring income on presumptive basis under section 44AD of the Act. The learned AO noticed that assessee has made various cash deposits into his Karnataka Grameena Bank account and State Bank of India account amounting to Rs.4,73,000 and Rs.10,26,950/-. The assessee has also made investments in State Bank of India and Karnataka Grameena Bank account aggregating to Rs.58 lakhs which was treated as unexplained by the learned AO. The prayer of the learned AR is that the bank statement could not be submitted before the learned AO during the assessment proceedings however furnished before the learned CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. We find that the learned CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence furnished by the assessee during the First Appellate Proceedings as it was not produced during the assessment proceedings by relying on the exception to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, considering the prayer of the learned AR in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) needs consideration, since it goes to the root of the additions by AO. We therefore direct learned CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences being bank statement of State Bank of India and Karnataka Grameena Bank furnished by the assessee and call for a remand report, if any, required from the learned AO before adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, after providing opportunity of being heard to assessee. We therefore remand the file back to the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal in accordance with law with the aforesaid directions. Accordingly ground No.4 is allowed for

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.