SARGOD VENKATAPPA GOWDA SUBRAMANYA,CHIKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that it was observed by the Income Tax Department that assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act in spite of the fact that he has deposited cash in various bank accounts and also undertook purchase and sale of equity shares in a recognized stock exchange. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after due compliance of the provisions for issuing notice under section 147/148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2023 which was duly served upon the assessee through email to the registered email ID of the assessee. Since there was no response from the assessee side, the AO called for information under section 133(6) of the Act from the Bank and observed that the assessee has carried out various transactions with co-operative banks, Vijaya Bank and Federal Bank. Since there was no response from the assessee, the entire transaction of Rs.10,70,39,628/- was added under section 69A of the Act and applied section 115BBE of the Act. Further, the assessee has also carried out purchase and sale of equity shares as discussed by the AO in paras 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 totaling to Rs.16,95,188/- (Rs.14,75,840 + Rs.2,19,348) and completed assessment under sections 147/144 of the Act vide Order dated 10.01.2024. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The ld. FAA issued various notices on different dates. The ld. FAA also issued a notice on 16.05.2024 observing that the appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time and application for condonation of delay was not filed. Accordingly, the appeal was treated as defective but till date of passing of Order dated 24.05.2024 the defect was not cured. Accordingly, the ld. FAA dismissed the appeal of the assessee treating it as invalid as defect was not cured despite being subsequently pointed out to the assessee. Page 3 of 5

Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is agriculturist owning coffee state in Chikmagalur, Karnataka. The notices sent by the Assessment Unit could not be replied, since, the assessee was not well versed with e-filing and other income tax technical related matters. Hence the Assessment Order is passed ex-parte. He further submitted that after filing appeal before the ld. FAA, the ld. FAA has wrongly dismissed appeal of the assessee. The assessee has not received any notice as he is not well versed in online proceedings. All notices were sent to the assessee through online. Resultantly, assessee could not reply. His intention was not to disregard the notices sent by the revenue authorities. He undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, he will comply to all the notices issued by the revenue authorities.

The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and objected to sending back the matter to lower authorities since both the authorities had given various opportunities to the assessee. 6. Considering the rival submissions, as per the statement of facts, we noticed that assessee is an agriculturist owning coffee estate at Chikmagalur, Karnataka. Assessee has not filed return of income inspite of various transactions carried out with banks and purchase and sale of equity shares. Assessee was issued notice under section 148 of the I T Act. on 28.03.2023 which was dully served to the assessee in the email. In pursuance to the notice under section 148 of the Act the assessee also did not file return of income . Subsequently the AO issued various notices but there was no response from the assessee side. The AO for want of representation treated as income to the entire deposits in to his bank account as per para No. 3.51 and he has also treated as income to the purchase and sale of equity shares as per paras 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 of the Assessment Order. The assessee filed appeal before the Page 4 of 5

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

Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.