MR. FAKIRAPPA SAVADATTI,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2, GADAG
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without giving the assessee a fair opportunity. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12 lakhs on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) with additional evidence, but it was rejected. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting additional evidence without providing a fair hearing, and whether the addition on account of cash deposits was correctly made.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGULURU BENCH, BENGULURU (SMC
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM
Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 15/12/2019. The relevant assessment year is 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the ground that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.9.36 lakhs on account of cash deposits in bank account by failing to consider the evidence produced by him.
The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.12 lakhs on account of cash deposits as unexplained by passing exparte order u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed additional evidence which was unadmitted by the CIT(A) on the reason that the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause to furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Against this, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessment order was passed ex parte without the participation of the assessee. Further, on appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee had produced additional evidence before him. However, he rejected the same holding that there is no reasonable cause for not producing the additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. This action of the CIT(A) is not justified. Being quasi-judicial authority, he should have given fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee which he failed to do so. In the interest of justice, I remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to furnish necessary evidence in support of his contentions and co-operate with the Assessing Officer Thus, this ground of appeal
of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 8th September, 2020.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026