VISHNU VARDHANA RAM YARA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed bythe CIT(A) vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/APT/S/147/2021-22/1040725356(1) dated 14.03.2025. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Income Tax Department, assessee did not file return of income for the year under consideration. Thereafter, following due procedure for making reassessment under section 147 of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued and served and subsequently under section 142(1) Page 2 of 6 of the Act was issued but assessee did not file the return of income. Thereafter, several opportunities were provided to the assessee to comply with the notices. Assessee has not submitted any documents or any explanations in compliance of notices issued. Thereafter, the AO, on the basis of the documents/ information available before him, he noted that the assessee has made term deposits of Rs.12 lakhs in ICICI Bank (TAN – Hyd00787D). During the Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14, after providing ample opportunities to the assessee, there was no response. Therefore, the term deposit was considered as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act. Further, it was also observed that the assessee has received interest from ICICI Bank amounting to Rs.10,80,224/- in which TDS under section 194A of the Act has been deducted. Assessee did not file return of income. Therefore, it was also considered as income for the impugned Assessment Year. Further, as per para 4.3 of the Assessment Order, the AO has noted that assessee has received salry from AMD R & D Centre India Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs.38,79,154/- and Achronix Semiconductor (India) Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs.12,04,478/-. During the Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 on which TDS under sections 192A and 194B of the Act have been deducted and assessee was asked to furnish various details but the assessee has not filed any detailed response to the notices in this regard. Therefore, entire amount of salary received amounting to R.50,82,632/- was considered as income and it remained unexplained by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO assessed income at Rs.73,60,860/- and completed assessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 14.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 10.08.2022 with a delay of 119 days. During the course of appellate proceedings, notices were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance and in Form 35 assessee had submitted the reason for delay in filing the appeal before Page 3 of 6 him. The delay before the CIT(A) was not condoned and CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee himself appeared in this case and submitted that he was suffering from corona virus and he was not conversant with the income tax proceedings. Therefore, notice issued by the AO could not be seen. He further submitted that he is a salaried person and he was of the opinion that both the employers have deducted TDS and issued Form 16 showing the salary received from the employer and tax deducted thereon. Therefore, he was of the opinion that once the employer have deducted entire due tax on the salary received, there is no need to file return of income. therefore, the income tax return was not filed. He further submitted with regard to not responding to the notices issued by the CIT(A). The notices were issued by the CIT(A) might have settled in the spam folder and could not be seen, that is reason for not responding to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). He further submitted that he is a salaried employee and working in the above named companies and produced bank statement in which the salary is credited. He further submitted that he does not have any other sources of income and fixed deposits were made out of his salary savings and past savings which is clear from the bank statement. During the impugned Assessment Year, he has received salary of Rs.50,80,632/- which is more than 4 times of the fixed deposits made of Rs.12 lakhs and TDS were deducted by the employer as and when salary is credited. Therefore, the telescopy benefit should be given to the assessee. The fixed deposit has not been made through cash which is appearing in the bank statement dated 14.07.2012 and requested that the matter may be decided on the basis of the documents produced. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that both the authorities have given various chances to the assessee and assessee is a non-filer of income tax inspite of having handsome Page 4 of 6 income and he is not illiterate Indian citizen. He should have filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. After issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, the return of income was filed. 6. Considering the rival submissions and perusal of entire material available on record placed before us, here the issue is only regarding addition made under section 69A of the Act towards the term deposit made in the ICICI bank account, interest paid by the ICICI bank and salary income. Assessee did not file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. In the impugned case both the authorities below have decided the issue ex-parte for want of explanation and the learned CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 119 days. Here in the case on hand, considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay before the learned CIT(A) and are taking up for adjudication by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Orissa Siksha "O" Anusandhan vs. Commissioner of Income- tax [2012] 20 taxmann.com 798 (Orissa) in which it has been held that law is well settled that once the materials are available on record the appellate court should have disposed off the case on the merits taking those materials into consideration and there is no need to direct remand. On going through the documents furnished before us in the appeal set, we noted that assessee has furnished Form 26AS, Form 16 issued by both the employers and copy of ICICI Bank statement for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.12.2013. The very basis of addition made by the AO is available on record. The ld. DR has also not disputed on the records submitted by the assessee The mere basis for reopening of the case is that assessee has made term deposit in the ICICI Bank of Rs.12 lakhs. On perusal of the bank statement, we noted that the amount has been credited by the employer as salary time to time and there are 3 times closure proceeds on 30.03.2013 for Rs.7,64,661/-, 31.10.2012 for Rs.6,77,013/- and on 07,06,201212/- for Rs.7,59,034/- respectively and further on 28.12.2012 there is transfer to fixed deposit of Rs.5 lakhs, on 22.11.2012 transfer to fixed deposit of Rs.10 lakhs, on 14.07.2012 transfer to funding account of Rs.12 lakhs respectively and there is Page 5 of 6 frequent cash withdrawal by the assessee through ATMs. In the entire bank statement for the impugned Financial Year, we do not find any cash deposits. It is clear from Form 16 issued by the employers’ that both the employers’ have deducted TDS on the salary paid by them. The Assessee has made these fixed deposits out of his past savings from salary. Therefore, the source is explained. The AO himself has noted that the assessee has received salary from 2 employer companies amounting to Rs.50,80,632/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under section 69A of the Act cannot be made. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the AO under section 69A of the Act. However, assessee has not filed return of income and did not offer salary and interest received as income. Therefore, we direct the AO to calculate due tax payable as per the provisions of law. Assessee is directed to substantiate his case with necessary documents for the salary and interest income. The juri ictional AO is directed to decide the issue as per law after giving benefit of deduction and give due tax credit. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (KESHAV DUBEY) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated : 22.08.2025. /NS/* Page 6 of 6 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order