PERISWAMY SATHISH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual had not filed his return of income. The AO based on the information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 20,18,000/- in his bank account and also made a payment of Rs. 2,13,86,750/- for transfer of an immovable property, had issued a notice to explain the source for the above said cash deposits and other financial transactions. The assessee had not responded to the notices and the case was reopened for scrutiny assessment u/s. 147

As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 280 days.

The assessee filed an application to condone the said delay and in the said affidavit, the assessee had expressed his inability to follow up the e- proceedings and therefore he was not aware about the various proceedings and the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee further submitted that only when he received the penalty notices, he came to know about the appeal order and thereafter approached the present counsel and the appeal was made ready and filed on 04/02/2025 with a delay of 280 days. The assessee submitted that the delay is neither wilful nor wanten and prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice.

We have considered the reasons stated in the said delay condonation application and perused the reasons stated in the said affidavit and also by Page 3 of considering the order of the AO is also an ex-parte order made u/s. 144 of the Act, we are of the view that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits.

At the time of hearing the Ld.AR prayed that the assessee being a person not conversant with the e-proceedings had failed to respond to the various notices issued by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed that another opportunity may be granted to furnish the documents to show that the assessee had enough source for making the said deposits and payments.

The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

We have gone through the assessment order in which the additions were made u/s. 69A as well as u/s. 68 of the Act mainly for the reason that the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the AO. Before us, the assessee submitted the reasons for the non-appearance before the AO as well as before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the fact that the assessment order was made u/s. 144 of the Act as well as the appeal order is also an ex-parte order on merits, we are inclined to grant one opportunity to the assessee to place all the materials before the AO in respect of the additions made u/s. 69A as well as u/s. 68 of the Act.

We, therefore set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit this issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration after considering the various documents to be furnished by the assessee in support of its claim that the additions are not required.