RAMACHANDRA M BHOSALE ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, VIJAYAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 609/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded that the assessee could not properly represent the case before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal included violation of natural justice and improper completion of assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment was completed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and if Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was applicable to the facts of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Aaryak G. Kaushik, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate –Standing
Hearing: 18.06.2025Pronounced: 15.09.2025

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC dated 24.01.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072485361(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Hon'ble National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is opposed to law and facts of the case.

2. The impugned appellate order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, without granting adequate opportunity to the Appellant.

Page 2 of 3 4. The NFAC, erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961.

5.

The NFAC, ought to have appreciated that the cash deposits in the appellant's bank account were duly explained as arising from known sources including retirement benefits, fixed deposit withdrawals, agricultural income, and pension savings.

6.

The NFAC, ought to have held that the provisions of section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7.

The Appellant craves for leave to add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal.”

3.

Before us, both parties fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent his case properly before both the authorities below. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the AO to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. At the same time, we also direct the assessee to produce/submit all the necessary details/documents/records/reports in support of his claim. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →