GANGAHANUMAIAH PAPAIAH BANDIHALLI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte Order passed by the NFAC [learned CIT(A)], Delhi, vide DIN : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064598484(1) dated 02.05.2024, contesting the addition of Rs.1,76,52,999/- by the AO in 144 Assessment Order dated 25.11.2019.

At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is delayed by 344 days. In this regard, assessee has filed affidavit dated 09.07.2025 stating the reason for delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal. On going through the above affidavit, we noted that the assessee had sufficient reason for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Briefly stated facts of the case are that as per verification under ‘Operation Clean Money’ the Income Tax Department gathered a list of assessees who had deposited substantial cash in bank account during the demonetization period. However, assessee did not file return of income. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 23.11.2017. Assessee filed income tax return in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, AO issued notice to the bank under section 133(6) of the Act and obtained information about the bank accounts of the assessee. From the details of the Axis Bank account No.912020038434020 it is noticed that assessee deposited cash during demonetization period of Rs.27,20,000/- and before and after demonetization period the total cash deposited is Rs.13,56,250/- and other deposits of Rs.1,06,06,131/-. Accordingly total deposit was Rs.1,42,82,381/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, opportunities were granted to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee. Therefore the entire cash deposits of Rs.1,42,82,381/- was treated as income under section 69A of the Act and AO invoked section 115BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee but assessee failed to respond to any of the invoices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee after relying on various case laws.

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that notice issued by the learned Page 3 of 4 CIT(A) were not served to the assessee or might have settled in the spam folder. Therefore, assessee could not represent his case and before the AO, notice was also not received. There was no intimation to disregard the statutory notices issued by the Revenue authorities and he undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee shall represent his case with cogent documents for substantiating the cash deposits in his bank account.

On the other hand, learned DR strongly objected for giving one more chance to the assessee. The repetitive disregarding of the notices issued by the Revenue authorities are very much clear from the Order of both the authorities below and the AO was bound to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire materials available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that case has been decided at both the levels of the authorities below ex-parte for non- prosecution by the assessee. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of AO for fresh consideration with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and assessee is directed to produce proof of payment of cost to the AO and AO is directed to decide the issue as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that assessee shall co-operate with the Revenue and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.