SRI. DINESH NARAYAN SHETTY ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), MYSURU

The learned CIT[A] erred in disposing off the appeal holding that the appellant had not furnished any response during the course of appellate proceedings without

The learned CIT[A] erred in upholding the assessment u/s.144 of the Act, especially when no effective opportunity was given in course of the assessment proceedings under the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.29,88,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, by unreasonably rejecting the explanation on mere surmise, suspicion, assumptions and presumptions and without considering the explanation and evidence tendered in course of the appellate proceedings under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

1 The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the invocation of the provisions of section 11566E and taxing the aforesaid addition made at the rate of 60% under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234-A of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled.

For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order was made u/s. 144 of the Act and submitted that the assessee had not received the notices and therefore the assessment was made u/s. 144 of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act is not based on any material records and therefore the addition is required to be deleted. The assessee also filed a paper book in which he

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

As seen from the assessment order, it is an ex-parte order made u/s. 144 of the Act for the reason that the assessee had not responded to any of the notices. It is the case of the assessee that no notices were received by him and therefore he was not able to appear before the AO and therefore the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act is not correct. Further, we have also perused the acknowledgement filed by the assessee from which we came to know that the assessee had filed various documents on 24/07/2024 with a prayer to accept the additional evidences in support of his case that there is no unexplained money involved in this case. In the appellate order, the Ld.CIT(A) had extracted the notices issued on various dates but he had not dealt with any of the documents filed along with the said reply including the application to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee in support of his claim.

Admittedly, the assessment is also an ex-parte assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A) had also not considered the various documents which were filed as an additional evidences in support of the case of the assessee and therefore in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue to the file of Ld.AO to consider the documents filed by the Page 4 of 4 assessee before us and decide the issue afresh on merits and in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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

Respondent 3. CIT

DR, ITAT, Bangalore

Guard file

CIT(A)