A. BHADRADEVI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The Order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), is not justified in law and onfacts and circumstances of the case.

2. As regards treating interest of Rs.13,32,744/- under the head 'incomefrom other source': 2.1.The lower authorities are not justified in treating Rs.13,32,744/- as theincome by way of interest in the hands of the Appellant under the head'income from other source', when the appellant had no right to receive thesame during the impugned year 2.2.The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that when the Appellant doesnot have right to claim the sale consideration itself, he also does not haveright to claim the interest arising out of such sale consideration. 2.3. Without prejudice to the above, the lower authorities have failed to appreciatethat mere credit of amount in fixed deposits accounts kept under the escrowwould not result in accrual until there is right to receive the same.

Page 2 of 3 2.4.The lower authorities failed to consider that, the Appellant has not receivedthe interest accrued on the escrow account to his disposal, and the appellantis an individual following cash method of accounting, it means no incomeearned by her in respect of the tax credit appeared in the 26AS to his PANduring the assessment year 2013-14.

4. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the action ofthe Learned Assessing Officer in levying of interest of Rs. 1,09,692/- underSection 2348, on the impugned additions, when the very additions are notjustified. Forthe above grounds and for such other grounds which may be allowed by theHonourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaidappeal be allowed.”

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. He submitted that it is noted by CIT(A) in Para 2 of his order that notice of hearing was issued by him to the assessee fixing the hearing on 11.02.2019 but the said notice has been returned un-served by the India Post with the remarks “Addressee Left without instruction”. He submitted that this is true that during this period, the assessee was not available at this address. In reply to query of bench as to whether the assessee has intimated about any new address, he submitted that at that point of time, the assessee was not having any address and therefore, the same could not be intimated to CIT(A) but now the assessee has taken residence on rent as per address given in Form No. 36 and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that if this is done, the notice can be sent at the address given by assessee in Form No.