Dharmanna Layappa Banasode , Bijapur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bijapur

ITA 92/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3249 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA
• Section: 148; 143(3); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.92/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2013-14 Dharmanna Layapppa Banasode, A/P Chadchan – 586 205, Tq. Indi, Dist. Bijapur. PAN: BGSPB 9027K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Bijapur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sandeep Kumar, H.S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 14.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/105974375(1) dated 29.12.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2013-14 confirming the order of the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that as per information received the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.77,54,000 in his SB account with SBI. The assessee had not filed return of income. The AO issued ITA No.92/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 4 notice u/s. 148 of the Act which was not complied. The AO called for information u/s. 133(6) from SBI, Chadachan Branch, Vijayapur Dist. and passed order u/s. 144 making addition of Rs.77,54,000 as unexplained cash deposit and Rs.3,91,177 on interest on FDs. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals). After issue of various notices, the assessee filed his reply which is incorporated in para 5 of the CIT(A)’s order. The CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO and it was forwarded to assessee for rebuttal. The assessee submitted that the assessee could not participate in the remand proceedings before the AO and requested for one more opportunity. The CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidence filed by the assessee and called for remand report from the AO. The AO’s remand report dated 14.11.2023 was forwarded to assessee for rebuttal by 15.12.2023. However, assessee failed to comply. Hence, the CIT(Appeals) considering the material on record, confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.73,54,000 and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. The ld. AR submitted that both the authorities have not properly appreciated the documents filed by the assessee. The assessee has filed a paperbook containing pages 1 to 38. She further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist having agricultural income and the amounts were received from the relatives. She reiterated submissions made before the lower authorities which is placed at page 26 of the PB. She further requested that if a chance is given to assessee, the assessee will ITA No.92/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 be able to prove the source of cash deposits with documentary evidence before the revenue authorities. She also relied on the order of the coordinate Bench of Amritsar Tribunal in ITA No.258/Asr/2022 dated 2.3.2023 in the case of Satbir Singh Bhullar vs ITO . 5. The ld. DR submitted that the both the authorities below had granted various opportunities to assessee for explaining the source of cash deposits, in spite of which the assessee could not prove the same. He relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we note that assessee has deposited cash in his bank account. For want of proper explanation from the assessee’s side, the cash deposits were added u/s. 69A of the Act. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee was given various opportunities which were not properly responded by the assessee. We note that the assessee is an agriculturist and resides in a remote area as submitted by the ld. AR. In the interest of justice, we remit the appeal to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by the assessee. The assessee will produce proof of payment of costs before the CIT(Appeals) and produce all necessary documents without seeking unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. The assessee may be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. ITA No.92/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 4 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 22 nd day of March, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 22 nd March, 2024. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.