SHARANAKUMAR PYATI,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, VIJAYAPUR
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs. 22,94,620 in cash into their bank account. Notice u/s. 148 was issued, but the assessee did not reply. Subsequent notice u/s. 142(1) was also not complied with. The AO completed the assessment ex parte, treating the cash deposit as unexplained and making an addition u/s. 69A.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee, residing in a remote area and unaware of proceedings, failed to respond to notices. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's undertaking to comply, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte assessment order and the addition made u/s. 69A for unexplained cash deposits were justified, given the assessee's claim of not being aware of the proceedings.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the ex parte DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057509751(1) dated 30.10.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2012-13.
The brief facts of the case are that as per AIR information it was noticed that the assessee has deposited cash in his bank accounts maintained with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Talikoti Branch of
ITA No.1145/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 4
Rs.22,94,620. Accordingly notice u/s. 148 was issued. The assessee did not reply even after 30 days time. Thereafter another notice 142(1) was issued which was also not complied by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO on the basis of material on record completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act treating the entire cash deposit as unexplained and made addition u/s. 69A.
Aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) issued five notices, however, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) decided the issue ex parte on the basis of material on record and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is residing in a remote area and running a retail shop and he was not aware of the income-tax proceedings and the notices issued therefore he could not reply to the notices issued by both the authorities. He requested that if a chance is given the assessee will prove the source of cash deposits before the authorities and undertook to comply to all the notices. Accordingly he submitted that the matter may be sent back to the AO.
On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the request of the assessee for another chance since both the authorities gave several opportunities but the assessee ignored.
ITA No.1145/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 4
Considering the rival submissions, we note that the assessee has deposited cash in Karnataka Bank Ltd. Talikoti Branch of Rs.22,94,620 and no return was filed by the assessee. Even the assessee did not file return in response to notice u/s. 148 and did not comply with other statutory notices. Considering the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee is residing in a remote area and not aware of income-tax proceedings. The ld. AR undertook during the hearing that all notices will be complied. In the interest of justice, we remit the issue in appeal to the AO for fresh consideration and decision as per law, after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to intimate the correct email-id and communication address, mobile no., etc. to the department and produce all the documents necessary to substantiate his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 24th day of January, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Bangalore, Dated, the 24th January, 2024.
/Desai S Murthy /
ITA No.1145/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 4
Copy to:
Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
By order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.
