B M VENKATARAMAN GOWDA L/H OF LATE B M CHANDREGOWDA ,KOLAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed Paper Book comprising of pages 1 to 41. The learned Counsel submitted that the case of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 15 of 17 2015-16 and 2019-20 were assessed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, no addition can be made for the completed Assessment Year without any incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action and in support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT, Central – 3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and he also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT, Central IT, New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) and submitted that while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for unabated Assessment Year, the AO has made addition which is contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, he submitted that statements recorded during the course of search proceedings are not conclusive without the incriminating documents for making additions without finding any concrete material during the course of search. He further submitted that reason for not appearing before the learned CIT(A) was that the assessee did not receive any notice or notices sent might have settled in the spam folder. Therefore, the assessee did not see notice sent by the CIT(A). His intention was not to disregard to the notices isused by the First Appellate Authority. He cooperated in the assessment proceedings and against the Assessment Order, he filed appeal and requested that appeal may be decided on the legal issue raised by the assessee.

On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has made the addition on the basis of statements recorded during the course of search as the statements recorded under section 132 (4) of the Act has great evidentiary value as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roshan Lal Sancheti Vs. PCIT reported in (2023) 150 taxmann.com 228 (SC). After recorded the statements, the assessee has not retracted his statements within a reasonable time. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is correct and he further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue in a very detailed manner regarding the issue raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Order of lower authorities should be upheld.

Considering the rival submissions, the assessee filed appeal against the ex- parte Order passed by the learned CIT(A) and he has argued on legal issue of the case challenging the addition made by the AO as raised in the grounds of appeal and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra. On going through the Order of the learned CIT(A), we noted that the issue has been decided ex-parte. The ld. CIT(A) gave various oppourtunities to the assessee Therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and on the grounds raised by the assessee, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the jurisdictional learned CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs.5,000/- for each Assessment Year and assessee is directed to pay the cost to the Revenue before taking up the caseby the learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law, assessee is directed to represent his case before the learned CIT(A) and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.