SRI.K.VENKIDUSWAMI ,TAMILNADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-14(5), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the CIT (A) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 23,14,237/- as against the total income returned by the appellant of Rs. 1,46,237/- for the impugned assessment year 2010-11 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in passing an exparte order by dismissing the appeal of the appellant, without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, which is against the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Grounds on merits of the matter : a) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in appreciating that the cash deposits made were largely by third parties as stated in the statement of facts while filing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in ignoring the fact that the appellant has detailed the names and PAN of the persons depositing the monies in his account, which goes to prove that the deposits to the extent of Rs.16,45,000/- ought to have been deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. c) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in appreciating that the appellant has made every effort in filing the complete details by the date of filing the appeal and ought to have sought a remand report to verify the details of the persons listed, before passing an exparte order, on the facts and circumstances of the case. d) Without prejudice, the invoking of section 69 was bad in law as the appellant did not have any investments, on the facts and circumstances of the case. e) Without prejudice, the additions made are excessive and was to be substantially reduced on the facts and circumstances of the case. f) Without prejudice, the appellant contends that the AO passing the order of assessment did not exercise jurisdiction over the appellant and the order passed is bad in law and is required to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234B of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be taken at the time of the hearing the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of CIT(A) is ex- parte qua the assessee. He submitted that as per the details given by CIT(A)

on page no. 3 of its order, 5 notices were sent by him for hearing during March 2016 to December 2017 and these notices were sent by Registered post but these notices were not served on the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not make compliance. He also submitted that on pages 76 to 85 of paper book filed by the assessee is additional evidence along with affidavit of assessee for admission thereof. He submitted that this additional evidence includes confirmation issued by four persons i.e. Shri Gopinath N, Shri R. Srinivasan, Shri Palaniswami M and Shri Bharath Prasad as per which they have stated that they have deposited cash in the account of the assessee along with the reason that such deposit was made for the purpose of making investment in a plot of land as a business venture jointly. He also submitted that it is also stated in the confirmations that all these four persons and present assessee were co-workers at M/s. Titan Company Ltd. for a considerable period of time. Regarding the sources of cash deposit also, it was stated that the same was made out of salary saved over the years in the form of chit funds, small loans etc. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the additional evidence should be admitted and the matter may be restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.