RAJENDRA ANKALGI,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BELGAUM

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous dates of hearing fixed on 29.01.2026, 10.02.2026, there is no appearance from the side of assesee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material on record.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal with a delay of 554 days. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) and adopting justice oriented approach condone the delay of 554 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.2,04,660/- declared in the e- return filed on 28.03.2018. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for examination of “Large value cash deposit during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. Valid statutory notices issued and assessee furnished the requisite details. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.13,66,000/- in the bank account held with BDCC Bank Ltd., Belgaum and assessee was asked to explain the above cash deposits and other credits reflected in the said account. Assessee furnished explanation. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the said explanation and made addition of entire cash deposit of Rs.12,66,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to make any compliance to the notices issued by ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. The sole grievance in the instant appeal is against the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.13,66,000/- as unexplained money. In the statement of facts and grounds of appeal filed the assessee is claiming that he is an Agriculturist and deriving regular income cultivation of sugarcane. Agricultural income is being shown for past many years out of disclosed sources of income ranging from Rs.20 to 30 lakhs. However, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making the alleged addition in the hands of assessee without properly appreciating the facts and sugarcane bills submitted before him. However, he submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate the source of cash deposits to the satisfaction of the authorities and prayed for restoring the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

Considering the factual matrix and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A) and adduce evidences in support of its grounds of appeal. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee, consider the documents to be filed by the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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