SOMASHEKHAR IRANNA VADAVADAGI,TAILKOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, VIJAYAPURA

The assessee raised the following grounds:

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 53,97,810/- in respect of the cash deposits in the bank account by holding that the appellant had submitted that he had no proof or details of customers, expenses, etc., on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that even though there were deposits in bank account to the extent of Rs. 53,97,810/-, substantial part of these deposits came out of the earlier withdrawals from the very same bank account on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), failed to appreciate that the major part of the cash deposits was out of the turnover of the business admittedly carried on by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the entire business turnover itself does not and could not have constituted the income of the appellant and the resultant net profit thereon as submitted by the appellant alone is the income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that the appellant has earned agricultural income which were part of the amounts deposited in the bank account on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the amount of Rs.3,51,200/- in respect of the addition made by the assessing officer as admitted profit from Page 3 of 4 speculation business on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the correct amount of profit from speculation business which was also admitted by the appellant is only Rs.34,023/- and not Rs. 3,85,223/- which is erroneously added by the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal

The facts of the case are that in the Assessment Order passed ex-parte against which the assessee went in appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) observed that assessee has deposited Rs. 53,97,810/- in FD account in Karnataka Bank Ltd., and State Bank of India. The same was treated as income of the assessee from unexplained sources. Similarly, there was an income from speculation business at Rs.3,85,223/- and Rs.20,000/- from interest on FD and Rs.2,048/- as interest on bank balance and Rs.4,13,450/- from agricultural income. Out of this, a sum of Rs.4,07,271/- treated as assessee’s taxable income. Thus, CIT(A) confirmed the total addition of Rs.60,45,081/- as the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to show that these are not the income of the assessee.

Before us, none appeared for the assessee. We have considered the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. In our opinion, assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case before CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear before the AO on various occasions and also only one opportunity of being heard was given to assessee on 11.03.2019 by CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we remit this entire issue to Page 4 of 4 the file of AO for a fresh consideration. AO has to give one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law.

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