C Ganesh Mallya, Bangalore V. Income tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 996/BANG/2017

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. C. Ganesh Mallya against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The additions pertained to unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 30,15,000 and Rs. 3,80,000. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte, without the participation of the assessee, and thus remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129489 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2017
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.1009 of 2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 234B

Judgement Text

ITA No.996/Bang/2017 Mr. C. Ganesh Mallya, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.996/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. C. Ganesh Mallya Prop: Alpha Systems No.154, 6 th Cross, 9 th Main 3 rd Block, Vidyaranyapura Bangalore 560 092 PAN No : ABJPM9776B Vs. ITO Ward-6(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Balram R. Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 30.12.2013 for the assessment year 2017-18. Originally this appeal has bee disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 14.7.2017 not condoning the delay of 1158 days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. Against this assessee carried the matter before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA No.1009 of 2017. Hon’ble High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the file of Tribunal vide judgement dated 8.4.2019. Accordingly, this appeal is listed for hearing afresh before this Tribunal. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- ITA No.996/Bang/2017 Mr. C. Ganesh Mallya, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer in the manner in which he did. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,15,0007- and Rs. 3,80,000/- under section 68 of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity 3. The Ld. CIT (appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 30,15,0007- without appreciating the fact that the Appellant had discharged the identity, genuineness and capacity of the loan creditor. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,15,0007- on mere surmises and conjectures. 5. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that, the addition of Rs.30,15,0007- as income of the current year under dispute did not pertain to the year under dispute this fact is clearly evident from the balance sheet and accounts of the Appellant for the year under dispute. 6. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the interest levied U/s. 234B & 234C totalling to Rs.4,13,839/- & Rs.6,371/-respectively. 7. For these and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed 2. Facts relating to two additions are that the assessee Mr. Ganesh Mallya is the Prop: Alpha Systems. In the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-6(1), it is stated that the petitioner’s AR was unable to explain the source to the extent of Rs.3,80,000/- and substantial evidence has not been produced. The assessee has borrowed money from friends and relatives in his individual capacity and the same has been invested in his business. However, the learned AO has not allowed the same. 2.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. AO has made an addition of Rs.30,15,000/- u/s 68 of the Act for want of records. The assessee has produced the income tax filed copies of Smt. Sudha Mallya, wife of Mr. Ganesh Mallya, who is earning an income of more than Rs.20 ITA No.996/Bang/2017 Mr. C. Ganesh Mallya, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 lakhs p.a. during the previous years and the ld. AO is in possession of the above records and also the letter stating that the money has been given to husband by the wife. However, the ld. AO has not taken cognizance of the same. 2.2 The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ld. AO committed a mistake in the assessment order by making an addition of whole of Rs.30,15,000/- as the income of the current year, even though the balance sheet and the accounts clearly shows that the amount is received over a period of time and not pertaining to the relevant assessment year for which the security is taken. 2.3 In view of the above facts, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who decided the appeal ex-parte deciding on merit against assessee. Now the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of ld. CIT(A). 4. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions by ex-parte order. Before me, the ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is having all the necessary evidences to support assessee’s case and prayed that the issue may be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh consideration. 4.1 The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue may go back to the file of ld. CIT(A) since the order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte. In my opinion, the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal on merit without participation of assessee. In the interest of justice, in my opinion, it is appropriate to remit the entire issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA No.996/Bang/2017 Mr. C. Ganesh Mallya, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 9 th Feb, 2023 Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 9 th Feb, 2023. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.