ACHAIBARPRASAD NANDAN VERMA L.R. OF VARMA MUNI (LATE),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(5), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was because the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, and notices issued to the assessee were returned unserved with the remark 'addressee not known', despite notices from the Tribunal being served at the same address.
What were the facts?
The assessee borrowed Rs. 149 Lakhs from her spouse, who in turn had borrowed Rs. 171 Lakhs by mortgaging his property. The Assessing Officer treated the entire loan outstanding of Rs. 1,46,42,151/- as unexplained and added it to the assessee's income.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper service of notice to the assessee is sustainable. The primary issue was the unexplained loan addition made by the AO.
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 ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Bangalore dated 24.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. Tax effect relating to each Ground of Grounds of Appeal appeal The assesse has barrowed Rs. 149 Lacks by SBI RTGS from her spouse and her spouse by mortgage his property has barrowed 171 Lacks from TATA Housing Finance Ltd.
1. The learned Assessing Officer is not Rs.49,91,174/- justified in treating the entire loan outstanding of Rs. 1,46,42.151/- as unexplained loan creditor and added as business Income. The learned Assessing Officer erred in 2. calculating interest U/s 234A, 234B and Rs.17,82,920/- 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 67,74,094/- Page 2 of 3
3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. He pointed out that notices of hearing issued by ld. CIT(A) were not served on the assessee. He pointed out that it is noted by ld. CIT(A) also in the impugned order that the notices issued by him had come back unserved with the remark of postal department that the “addressee not known”. He submitted that there is no fault of assessee in this because on the same address, the notices issued by the Tribunal were served on the assessee. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A).
4. We have considered the rival submissions. In view of the facts noted above that the notice issue by the Tribunal on the same address was duly served on the assessee and in the interest of justice, we feel it proper to restore back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision. We order accordingly. We set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
More judgments on Section 234A
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026