SATISH HEGGADE,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS,, SHIVAMOGGA

The common facts involved in all these appeals are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income. Based on the information that the assessee had carried out his financial transactions by depositing cash into his bank accounts, the case was taken up for reopening u/s. 148 of the Act. Before issuing notice u/s. 148, the AO had issued a notice u/s. 148A(b) and subsequently, an order u/s. 148A(d) was passed. Thereafter notice u/s. 148 was issued and the AO based on the bank statements submitted by the banks, had issued a show cause notice. Before the said show cause notice, the AO had issued notice u/s. 142(1) and also a show cause notice for making the assessment u/s. 144. The AO had also issued 142(1) notice through speed post which was also duly received by the assessee. In spite of the receipt of the various notices, the assessee had not filed any response and therefore the AO had treated the cash deposits as his income and estimated the addition at 15% of the cash deposits as income and also made the interest income as income from other sources. As against the said orderds, the assessee filed the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) with delays as follows:

Similarly, the AO had also imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Y. 2016-17 and also penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee filed appeals against the penalty orders also with the following delays. Appeal No. Delay More than 26 ITA No. 2782/Bang/2025 months More than 2 ITA No. 2784/Bang/2025 years

In support of the said delays, the assessee also filed applications to condone the said delays and in the said condonation application, the assessee had stated the medical grounds as the reason for not filing the appeals in time. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the said delays since there is no sufficient reasons for filing the said appeals with such an abnormal delays and dismissed all the appeals.

As against the said order, the present appeals have been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has been diagnosed with Basal Ganglia Hematoma disease which is a condition affecting the brain and functions associated with motor control, speech and cognition and therefore the assessee was hospitalised on 17/11/2020 and later on he was discharged from the hospital on 20/11/2020 and he was under medical treatment till date. The Ld.AR further submitted that in view of the said reasons, the assessee was not active in his day-to-day business

The Ld.DR submitted that the delay is abnormal and therefore prayed to dismiss all the appeals.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Admittedly, the assessee had filed the appeals with the delays as mentioned above. The assessee had given the reasons in the written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the assessee had also produced the medical certificate about his disease and also submitted that still he is under treatment. The assessee had also pointed out the mistake committed by the ITP in not following up the matter when the AO had issued the various notices and therefore a best judgment assessment was made by the AO.

We have also considered the submissions made by the assessee on merits. As seen from the assessment order, the AO had made the additions based on the cash deposits made into the bank accounts of the assessee. In the written submissions, the assessee had raised several grounds on merits but unfortunately, the said grounds were not adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) in view of the delay in filing the appeals.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.