HOSUR MAHADEV GOUD,BANGALORE V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(1), BENGALURU

ITA 797/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Hosur Mahadev Goud, the appellant, contesting the assessment orders for the years 2017-18 to 2019-20 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore. The assessments were based on documents seized during a search and seizure operation related to another entity, which implicated the appellant in undisclosed income and misclassified capital gains. The CIT(A) initially dismissed the appellant's appeals due to non-compliance and lack of submission of details, which the appellant attributed to the personal exigencies of his counsel. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) emphasizes the need for a thorough and fair reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711805 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDESH N. GADDI
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 144; 142(1); 132

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.796 to 798/Bang/2025 Assessment years : 2017-18 to 2019-20 Shri Hosur Mahadev Goud, No.336, 9th Main Road, Dollars Colony, J.P. Nagar, 4th Phase, Bangalore – 560 078. PAN: ANHPM 2943A Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CA Respondent by : Shri Balusamy N., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. These appeals are filed by Shri Hosur Mahadev Goud (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20 against the composite appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore [ld. CIT(A)] dated 7.2.2025 wherein the assessee was granted 5 opportunities, but except applying for adjournment, no Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.796 to 798/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 5 compliance is made and therefore the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). 2. The assessee is in appeals before us. 3. The brief facts for AY 2017-18 show that assessee has filed his return of income on 30.10.2017 at a total income of Rs.18,21,600. Search & seizure action u/s. 132 was carried out on Sri Kumaraswamy Minerals Exports Pvt. Ltd. group on 19.11.2008. Residence of one, Smt. Hosur Nagarathna was also searched and documents were found and seized which pertained to the assessee, Shri Hosur Mahadev Goud. 4. Based on this, a notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 19.3.2021 which was responded to by filing return of income on 8.4.2021 at Rs.15,91,600. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act. 5. Based on the seized documents, the long term capital gain of Rs.23,70,000 was charged to tax in the hands of the assessee on account of sale of plot of land. Since the assessee had a short term capital loss also, this addition was set off. A further addition was made in the hands of assessee with respect to house property income and income from other sources. The assessment order was passed on 28.3.2022. 6. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144C was passed on 28.3.2022 wherein over and above the reclassification of capital gain, addition of house property income and income from other sources was made. 7. Similarly for AY 2019-20, assessment order u/s. 144 was passed on 28.3.2022 wherein addition of Rs.44 lakhs was made as unexplained income, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.796 to 798/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 5 as assessee failed to show the nature and source of balance payment of Rs.44 lakhs out of the total payment of Rs.1,71,00,000. Further there was reclassification of trading loss of short term capital loss. 8. Against all the 3 assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Despite several notices on 5 different occasions, assessee did not submit any detail, except sought adjournment on 4 occasions. Even on 5th occasion, the adjournment request was also not made. These appeals of the assessee were dismissed for all the years by the ld. CIT(A) as no further evidences were placed before her. 9. The assessee is in appeal for all these 3 years. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s AR was unavoidably preoccupied due to the marriage of a close family member and due to personal exigency, adjournment request was made by the counsel and assessee could not remain present before the ld. CIT(A). He submits that within 2 months, 5 notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) and ultimately dismissed the appeals. 10. The assessee before us submitted that the assessee was neither wilful nor non-cooperative and further submitted the wedding card of the family of the counsel. Thus it was submitted that disposal of the appeal ex parte by the ld. CIT(A) is not proper. 11. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee was given 5 opportunities of hearing before the ld. CIT(A), but except applying for adjournment, assessee did not respond or submit any details and therefore the ld. CIT(A) cannot be found fault with in dismissing the appeals of the assessee. It was further submitted that assessee has not submitted any details before the Tribunal also. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.796 to 798/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 5 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. We find that against the 3 assessment orders, assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued notices in the month of Nov. 24 first and in January, 2025 last consisting of 5 opportunities to the assessee. Admittedly the assessee has requested for adjournment on 4 occasions which was granted by the ld. CIT(A). However, on the 5th occasion neither the assessee responded by filing adjournment application nor made any submission on the merits of the case. The reason stated by the ld. AR is the marriage in the family of CA. He also supported it by enclosing a copy of Invitation Card of the wedding. Because of the social function in the family of the counsel of the assessee, there was no representation by the assessee and the appeals of the assessee were dismissed ex parte. Looking to the facts of the case, in the interest of justice, we retore all these 3 appeals back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to submit all the details in time from the date of opening of the window, in completeness. The ld. CIT(A) after granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee, may decide the issues in accordance with law. 13. In view of the above, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( KESHAV DUBEY ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 22nd July, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.796 to 798/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 5 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "