MUNIYAPPA GOVINDRAJ,KGF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT condoned a 15-day delay in filing the appeal. Noting that the AO completed the assessment within two days during the Covid-19 period and the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for justifiable reasons, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the AO. This remittance is conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Pradhan Mantri National Relief Fund, and the AO must provide a fresh opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2018-19, which was picked for limited scrutiny. The AO requested details for cash deposited during demonetization, but the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte assessment with an addition of Rs. 10,59,61,602/-. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the AO's ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A) should be set aside due to lack of proper opportunity to the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.9.2024 and relates to assessment year 2018-19 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068694325(1).
Brief facts as coming out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual filed its income tax return electronically on 5.10.2018 declaring an income of Rs.9,75,300/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, various documents were called for by the AO with respect to the source of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization Muniyappa Govindraj, KGF Page 2 of 3 period. However, the assessee could not respond to any notice of the AO and hence, the AO passed an ex-parte order, after making an addition of Rs.10,59,61,602/- to the returned income of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, no one appeared from the side of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO without going into the merits of the case.
Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before us. There is a delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal, for which the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the contentions raised in the application for condonation of delay, which is duly supported with a sworn affidavit of the assessee.
The ld. D.R. opposed the prayer of the assessee vis-à-vis condonation of delay. And on merits the Ld DR submitted that the assessee is owner of wine shops and was earning handsomely and hence some cost may be imposed on assessee for the grant of another opportunity.
Considering the reasons and short period of 15 days, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to decide the matter.
After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, we observe that in this case final show cause notice was issued by the AO on 21.4.2021 and the assessment has been completed on 23.4.2021, which means within 2 days AO has framed the assessment. It is worthy to note that April, 2021 was the period of Covid-19 and hence, the AO ought to have granted some more time to the assessee. Be that as it may be, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to appear, for which the counsel for the assessee Muniyappa Govindraj, KGF Page 3 of 3 could not be able to point out any justifiable reasons except sincerely apologizing before the Bench. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby remit the matter to the file of AO subject to deposition of an amount of Rs 10000/- as cost of to be deposited by the assessee with “Pradhan Mantri National Relief Fund”. With this condition, we restore this matter to the file of AO for examining afresh. Needless to say, that the AO will provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee before taking any view. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents, in order to prove the source of cash.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 6th Jan, 2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026