Mysore Home Developers Pvt Ltd , Mysore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1) , Mysore

ITA 1137/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4683 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SATYA SAI RATH
• Assessee Lawyers: H VANI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 234B; 147; 69; 148; 144; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP NO S . 1 43 & 144 /BANG/20 18 (IN I TA NO S . 1136 & 1137 / BANG/2 0 18 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ) AND I TA NO S . 1136 & 1137 /BANG/2 018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12) MYSORE HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. NO.545, 2 ND STAGE, RAJIVNAGAR, MYSORE - 570 022. PAN AADCM 7258 E VS. PETITIONER / APPELLANT ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRC LE 1(1), MYSORE. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. H. VANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR.SATYA SAI RATH, ADDL.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01 /0 6 /2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 / 0 6 /201 8 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THESE ARE APPEALS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS),[ CIT(A) ] MYSORE, DATED 31 /0 8/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12. D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF S TAY P ETITION NOS.143 & 144/BANG/2018 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FELT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS SHORT REQUIR ING REMAND TO THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE HAD TAKEN UP THE APPEALS FOR DISPOSAL. SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 2 OF 8 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE 1S T APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSING ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY APPELLANT IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WHIMSICAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE IS NO DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY TH E RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE CONCLUDING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE COMMENT 'NO SUCH OFFICE' AND THEREFORE THERE IS ALSO NO DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT. 4. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; I. AFTER COMING TO KNOW ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144 APPELLANT FILED A SUITABLE REPLY BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER THE REPLY HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED JUDICIOUSLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE LEARNED 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITH TRUE SPIRIT. THEREFORE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 AND ALSO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRING A REMAND TO THE RESPO NDENT ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. APPELLANT UNDERTAKES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON ANY GIVEN DATE SPECIFIED BY THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND OPERATE WI TH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY PRODUCING THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. II. THE FINDING OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN PARAGRAPH 5 THAT ONLY AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 AS PER LAW', IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL. AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARAGRAPH 6, THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASONS AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY MERELY STATES THAT THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IS AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR WHICH PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WILLFULLY NOT CO - OPERATING WITH THE SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 3 OF 8 DEPARTMEN T. THEREFORE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT JUDICIOUSLY AND HAS PROCEED TO MECHANICALLY DISMISS THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THA T THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME THAT WAS LIABLE TO BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. I. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE DORMANT COMPANY WHOS E NAME HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES FOR FAILURE TO CARRY ON WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO COMMENCE THE BUSINESS AND TO CARRY ON WITH THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND THEREFORE APPELLANT DID NOT SUCCEED IN ITS BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE, RESULTING IN MULTIPLICITY OF LITIGATIONS INCLUDING THE ONE RELATING TO THE LAYOUT FORMATION.HUGE MONIES HAVE BEEN RETURNED / REFUNDED TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT OWING TO THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMS. THIS FACT HAS NEVER BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. II. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CONSIDERING ONLY THE BANK DEPOSITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME IGNORING THE PAYOUTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND, CONVERSION CHARGES, FORMATION OF LAYOUT, ETC APART FROM OTHER GENERAL COSTS SUCH AS LABOUR, MACHINERY, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, ETC. III. THE APPELLANT FOLLOWED THE PROJECT. COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCO UNTING AND DID NOT OFFER ANY INCOME TO TAX DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION SINCE RIP PROJECT WAS COMPLETED. APPELLANT HAD NOT COMPETED EVEN 25% OF THE PROJECT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. IV. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT IN QUESTION RAN INTO LITIGATIONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISPUTED LAND, DELAYED DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAYOUT, NON - PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES, ETC AND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE EVEN 25% OF THE PROJECT. APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWED PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND SINCE THERE WAS NO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DECLARE ANY INCOME. APPELLANT HAS BEEN FORCED TO RETURN THE MONEYS TO THE DEPOSITORS IN ORDER TO SAVE THE PROMOTER AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR FROM CONTEMPT OF SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 4 OF 8 COURTS. THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THESEFACTS DESPITE THEY WERE PLACED BEFORE THEM. V. THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS AS TO WHY THE PAYOUTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS TOWARDS VARIOUS EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED A DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE THE LEARNED 1' APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT A DORMANT COMPANY. THIS FINDING OF THE 1 ST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IS ARBITRARY. VI. THE LEARNED 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS NOT LIQUIDATED AS PER THE LAW DURING THE 2 PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A DORMANT COMPANY, IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS THERE INVOLVES MANY ACTIVITIES INCLUDING PURCHASE OF LAND, DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, FORMATION OF LAYOUT, EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND EXECUTIO N OF SALE DEEDS FINALLY, AND IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS NORMALLY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO DECLARE THE PROFITS ONLY BASED ON FINALISATION OF THE SALE TRANSACTION BY EXECUTING THE SALE DEEDS. TILL THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED FAVOURING THE CUSTOMER, THERE IS N O TAXABLE INCOME THAT NEEDS TO BE DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT SINCE THE FINALISATION OF THE TRANSACTION IS SUBJECTED TO CONTINGENCIES. UNLESS THOSE CONTINGENCIES ARE MET THE APPELLANT IS NOT LIABLE TO DECLARE THE PROFITS/ INCOME. THE LAND IS DEVELOPED AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY STATUTORY APPROVALS AND BY EXHIBITING WORKS OF DEVELOPMENT. APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE EXECUTED SALE DEEDS MERELY BASED ON THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND WITHOUT FORMATION OF LAYOUT FULFILLING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. ADMITTEDLY NO SALE DEE DS WERE EXECUTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. VII. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME THAT WAS LIABLE TO BE DISCLOSED TO TAX BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION SINCE THE AP PELLANT HAD NOT EXECUTED ANY SALE DEEDS FAVOURING ANY CUSTOMERS AS THE DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES WERE IN PROGRESS. VIII. UNTIL AND UNLESS A SALE DEED IS EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ADVANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE INTENDING PURCHASERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND ACCORDINGLY APPELLANT DID NOT OFFER TO TAX THE ADVANCE SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 5 OF 8 AMOUNTS RECEIVED. GIVEN THE FACT SITUATION, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE S OF THE APPELLANT ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WITHOUT RECORDING A FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEEDS FAVOURING THE INTENDING PURCHASERS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY REFUSED TO FURNISH THE REASONS FOR RECORDING SUPPORTING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 IN SPITE OF A SPECIFIC REQUEST FROM THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID. I. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 DESPITE THE APPELLANT MADE A REQUEST IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE THERE IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE VITIATED. THE SAID ACT OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS IN VIOLA TION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN (2003) 259 ITR 19 SC II. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME THAT HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12, GIVEN THE FACT SITUATION THAT THERE WERE NO SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THOSE 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT IN THE DEPOSITS F OUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT THAT HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY CONSIDERED AS TAXABLE INCOME. 7. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IS A RBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL. NO SUCH STATEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 151 APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN FACT APPELLANT IS WILLING TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UPON REMAND BY THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CONCLUDED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE IT IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. I. THE LEARNED ASSESS ING AUTHORITY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REPLY AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR IT PROVES SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 6 OF 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WILLFULLY NOT CO - OPERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND SUCH A FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICA L. II. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ARE ON THE SAME LINES AND WITH THE SAME REASONING, WHICH PROVES THE NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY. III. THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TREATED THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS OR RECEIPTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS THE ASSESSED INCOME AND LEVIED TAX, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT INVOLVES HUGE EXPENDITURE INCLUDING PURCHASE OF LAND, GETTING CONVERSION ORDERS AND APPR OVALS FROM THE COMPETENT STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BARREN LAND INTO SITES IN A RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY DEVELOPER TO SELL THE SITES TO THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS WITHOUT CARRYING OUT THE AFORESAID BASIC MINIMUM REQUI REMENTS. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONVENIENTLY IGNORED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 9. THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS. 3,75,70,374/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE, ARBITRARY AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. I. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ON RECORD UNDER WHICH PROVISION THE DEPOSIT AMOUNTS WERE ADDED AS ALLEGED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND ADDITION MADE IS VAGUE, BASED ON MERE SUSPICION. II. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED I N HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT CONSTITUTED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT THAT WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUCH DEPOSITS WAS NOT SATISFACTORY IN T HE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEN NO SUCH FINDINGS ARE FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LACUNA IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PASSING A JUDICIOUS ORDER CANNOT BE FILLED IN BY THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY. III. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY ADDUCING ANY CREDIBLE AND VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, IGNORING THE INFORMATION PRODUCED BEFORE HIM REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, FORMATION OF LAYOUT, ADVANCE R ECEIVED SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 7 OF 8 PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO WITH THE CUSTOMERS AND THE COURT ORDERS PASSED ARE SUBSEQUENTLY DIRECTING REFUND TO CUSTOMERS ON ACCOUNT OF A TO DEVELOP THE LAND, ETC. IV. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MENTION ONLY A SPECIFIC SECTION UNDER WHICH THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT BECAME ASSESSABLE AND THE OMISSION IS ONLY A CREDIBLE DEFECT WHILE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT SPEAK ANYTHING ABOUT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT ALL. THEREFO RE THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND BRINGING TO TAX THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 10. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND SECTION 234C OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE DELETED 11. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS WAS DISPATCHED BY THE REGISTRY ONLY IN FEBRUARY 2018 , THOUGH THE ORDER WAS ALLEGEDLY PASSED IN AUGUST 2017. APPELLANT APPREHENDS THAT THE ORDER IS ANTE - DATED FOR THE REASONS NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT. 12 . FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE A PPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED 13 AN OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING MAY BE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT 3. BRIEFLY FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. NO RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ON 03/12/2013. AGAINST SAID NOTICE, NO RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE APPELL ANT. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY AO ASSESSING CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/03/2015 U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COMPLIED WITH NOTICES U/S 142 BY F ILING INFORMATION CALLED FOR BEFORE THE AO. THE SAID INFORMATION HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND BROUGHT THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK SP NO S . 143 & 144 & ITA NOS.1136 &1137 / BANG/201 8 PAGE 8 OF 8 ACCOUNTS TO TAX. EVEN THE LD.CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO C ONSIDER THIS MATERIAL WHILE AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE APPELLANT HAD FILED INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF EXPLAINING SOURCES FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUN TS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) INDICATING THAT THESE MATERIAL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO/LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS A FIT CASE TO REMAND THE MATER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION CON SIDER ING INFORMATION/MATERIAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO ON 30/03/2015 AND TO PASS THE ORDER AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 6. SINCE THE APPEALS GIVING RISE TO STAY PETITIONS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF, THE STAY PETITIONS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ARE ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH JUNE , 2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 08 / 0 6 /201 8 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE