ATTUR MUNEERAPPA KRISHNAPPA,ATTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in spite of issuing several notices, the assessee neither filed any written submission nor submit the requisite evidences either before the AO or during the course of the Appellate Proceedings. Since there was no submission/evidence available on record relating to merit and in support of the grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts, the ld. ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that the AO was right in adding the sum of Rs.70,00,000/- as short term capital gain. 6. Again aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa, Bangalore Page 5 of 6

Before us the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO had wrongly observed that the assessee had not filed his return of Income. In fact the assessee had filed his return for the Asst. year 2018-19 by declaring the capital Gain on sale of such alleged immovable property. The AR of the assessee further submitted that in fact the assessee had declared sales consideration of Rs.2,05,50,000/- through proper banking channels whereas the AO is merely alleging to have received only Rs.70,00,000/- and accordingly prayed that the addition may be deleted.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the Authorities below.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee could not produce the details such as statement of capital gains arising out of the above transaction, computation of long or short term capital gains, copy of the sale deed, copy of the purchase deed, cost of acquisition/cost of improvement/expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of property, details of reinvestment made along with supporting evidences along with the bank statements as required by the AO. Further, on going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we also take a note of the fact that even during the appellate proceedings, despite issuing several notices, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, accordingly held that since there was no submission/evidence available on record relating to merit and in support of the grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts, the ld. ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the AO was right in adding the sum of Rs.70,00,000/- as short term capital Attur Muneerappa Krishnappa, Bangalore Page 6 of 6 gain. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in fact the assessee had filed his return for the Asst. year 2018-19 by declaring the capital Gain on sale of such alleged immovable property. This being so, in the interest of justice & fair play, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of hearing must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the necessary documents/records/ accounts/statements in support of his claim and should not take unnecessary adjournments. We make it clear that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

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

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file