ANIL RADDI KARAKALLI,TALIKOTI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) & TPS, BIJAPUR

ITA 52/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anilraddi Karakalli, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which upheld the AO's decision adding Rs. 26,05,353 as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee, engaged in contract and wage works, had deposited this amount in the bank but did not initially file a return of income. Upon filing, he declared a total income of Rs.3,61,323, claiming the deposits were from contractual receipts and other business transactions. The ITAT admitted additional evidences not previously available to the lower authorities and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711781 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GALE; STANDING COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEETAL BORKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Presumptive income
• Section: 148; 44AD

Judgement Text

"ITANo.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.52/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anilraddi Karakalli Vidyanagar Talikoti Talikoti 586 214 Karnataka PAN NO : CVAPK6721K Vs. ITO Ward 1 & TPS Bijapur APPELLANT RESPONDENT SP No.37/Bang/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.52/Bang/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anilraddi Karakalli Vidyanagar Talikoti Talikoti 586 214 Karnataka PAN NO : CVAPK6721K Vs. ITO Ward 1 & TPS Bijapur APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department Date of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 17.12.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071292073(1) passed u/s Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 2 of 8 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 3 of 8 3. The assessee has submitted an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 dated 21.4.2025, in support of his claim, which is reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 4 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 5 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 6 of 8 4. On going through the above application for admission of additional evidences, we take a note of the fact that certain crucial document which are now being submitted before us were not available either at the time of assessment or at the time of first appellate authority. In these circumstances, assessee has no remedy except to file these additional evidences before this Tribunal. 4.1 After considering the rival submissions, in our opinion, the action of the assessee is bonafide as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing these documents during the course of assessment as well as first appellate stage. Being so, in our considered view, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to admit these additional evidences for adjudication in the interest of justice & fair play. Accordingly, these additional evidences are admitted for the purpose of adjudication. 5. The assessee is engaged in the Contract works & wage works. As per the information, it was seen by the AO that the assessee had actually deposited cash of Rs. 26,05,353/- in the bank during the F.Y. 2017-18 but did not file his return of Income. During the course of the Assessment proceedings, the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, filed his return of Income declaring total income of Rs.3,61,323/-. The assessee claimed that his source of income is only from the contract works and the cash received had only been deposited in the Talikoti Sahakari Bank Niyamit. Further the assessee having the overdraft facility in the Corporation bank for the purposes of his business. The AO in the absence of sufficient explanation regarding the source of such financial transactions added the entire deposits of Rs. 26,05,353/- as unexplained Income u/s 69A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 7 of 8 5.1 Before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee again claimed that the deposits were sourced from contractual receipts, cash withdrawals from overdraft loan account, and payments made to wage workers. Income was offered under the presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Act declaring the gross receipts of Rs. 27,35,278/- .The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the action of AO in the absence of satisfactory additional evidence/explanation to substantiate his claim. 5.2 We are of the opinion that the turnover/gross receipts from contract works declared by the assessee in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act is not disputed by the authorities below. Now since these additional evidences were produced for the first time before us and it is not available before the authorities below, hence, in the interest of justice & fair play, we deem it fit to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO to decide afresh in accordance with law after taking into consideration the additional evidences produced before us. Needless to say, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the relevant details/ information/record to substantiate his claim. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Since we have remitted the entire issue back to the file of AO, the Stay petition No.37/Bang/2025 for the AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and accordingly dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.52/Bang/2025 & SP No.37/Bang/2025 AnilraddiKarakalli, Talikoti Page 8 of 8 8. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th July, 2025 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 24th July,2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "