MUNIDASAPPA MANJUNATH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

The assessee has also raised the additional ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act on the basis that the same is not in compliance with the CBDT Instruction. The additional ground raised by the assessee is reproduced as follows: -

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and, for the year under consideration, filed his return of income on 26/08/2017, declaring a total income of INR 8,17,720. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he is deriving income from multiple businesses such as cable collection, diesel charges, rental income, taxi hire collection, Xerox charges collection, agricultural income, bank interest, commission, income from construction, miscellaneous income, real estate, dry cleaning income, and water charges collection. It was further submitted that, as a customer service provider for multi-link business, including money transfers, funds are granted to various parties, and disbursements are made to parties in need of small amounts. It was submitted that the recovery will be made from the parties, and that the said amount has been deposited in the bank. Upon verification of the details furnished by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had not submitted any supporting details except the cash book for the months of November and December. Accordingly, a final opportunity was granted vide show-cause notice, and details such as financials, the balance sheet, and the profit and loss account were sought. Further, the assessee was asked to furnish the details regarding the agricultural income earned by him during the year under consideration. However, the assessee did not respond to the show-cause notice. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 20/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, made an addition of INR 99,50,368 under the head business income and also disallowed the exemption of INR 7 lakh claimed towards agricultural income.

The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the learned CIT(A), while deciding the assessee’s appeal, considered the facts in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2020-21. The learned AR further submitted that since the AO did not grant sufficient time to the assessee, the details as requested could not be filed. It was further submitted that all the details sought by the AO were furnished by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). However, none of these details was considered, and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) submitted that despite grant of opportunity, the assessee could not furnish relevant details before the lower authorities.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 15/12/2019, granting time to the assessee to furnish the details on or before 18/12/2019. It is an admitted fact that the assessee could not respond to the said notice. Without granting any further opportunity, the AO passed the assessment order within 2 days, i.e. on 20/12/2019. As per the assessee, along with his appeal 4 filed before the learned CIT(A), he had filed all the details that could not be furnished before the AO. However, we find that the learned CIT(A), without taking into consideration any of these details, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), at some places in its order, has also considered the facts for the assessment year 2020-21. It is further evident that the learned CIT(A) has reproduced the findings of the AO multiple times in its order. However, there is no adjudication of the issue involved and the evidences furnished by the assessee are not considered. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned order in the present form cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside.

Since the impugned additions were made due to lack of documentary evidence being furnished by the assessee, we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the assessee to furnish all these details for necessary verification. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to comply with the notices and furnish all details of his income earned from all his activities. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for consideration afresh, we direct the assessee to fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish any other details as may be sought by the AO. With the above directions, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-Oct-2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 27-Oct-2026 *VM* Copy to: MUNIDASAPPA MANJUNATH, NO. 3, GOKULA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, DLF NEW TOWN, BOMMANAHALLI S O 1 YELENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560068, KARNATAKA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH 2 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH 5 GUARD FILE BY ORDER