PRATHIK RAVIKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income and based on the information that he had deposited huge cash in his bank accounts, notice u/s. 148 was issued and subsequently, a notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued for which the assessee filed some details and contended that the cash deposits are made out of cash withdrawal from his bank account. The AO not satisfied with the explanations had confirmed the cash deposits made into his bank account in JSCBL Bank Axis Bank as unexplained money. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had issued several notices on 13/12/2024, 03/01/2025 and 27/01/2025 but the assessee had responded only to the notice dated 27/01/2025 and asked for an adjournment. The Ld.CIT(A) without granting an adjournment, had decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the same.

As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the credits made into the bank accounts were all bank transfers effected by his father and his mother and therefore the said deposits could not be treated as unexplained money. The Ld.AR further submitted that the necessary proofs and confirmation of the credits into the bank account were available with him and the said documents could not be produced before the Ld.CIT(A) since the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had granted three hearings and for the last hearing date, the assessee had filed an application for adjournment but without granting the adjournment, the Ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and therefore prayed an opportunity to furnish the details before the AO.

The Ld.DR submitted that in spite of several opportunities granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had not appeared and therefore the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is correct and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have perused the assessment order and in page 5 of the order, the AO had observed that the assessee had stated that the cash is withdrawn from one account and then deposited in another account maintained by assessee himself, but the source of cash is not submitted by the assessee.

Considering the said facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant an opportunity for the assessee to appear before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with the available proofs and documents in support of his case that the cash deposits were made from their parents’ bank account and therefore it could not be treated as an unexplained money.

We, therefore, set aside the assessment order as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue back to the AO for denovo consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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