KEREMANE THIMMAPPAIAH RAMPRASAD ,K.T. RAMAPRASAD M/S. SUPREME BAJAJ, SHIVAMOGGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA

ITA 1516/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri. Keremane Thimmappaiah Ramprasad against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [learned CIT(A)], which had earlier dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution by the assessee. The primary issue in the case was the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,06,17,581 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which the Assessing Officer (AO) deemed unexplained. The assessee had initially filed a return declaring an income of Rs.4,70,920, which was selected for scrutiny to examine the sources of cash deposits. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the sources of these deposits, leading to the addition. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the previous non-representation at the CIT(A) level, decided to remit the case back to the JAO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789750 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDESH NAGARAJ GADDI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI.SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1516/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Keremane Thimmappaiah Ramprasad, K.T. Ramaprasad M/s. Supreme Bajaj, Shankar Mutt Road, Shivamogga – 577 201, Karnataka. PAN : AMQPR 2967 P Vs. ITO, Ward – 1& TPS, Shivamogga. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 11.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the NFAC [learned CIT(A)], Delhi, vide DIN :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1074170534(1) dated 07.03.2025. 2. At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is delayed by 39 days. In this regard, assessee has filed an affidavit dated 08.07.2025 stating the reason for delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal. On going through the above affidavit, we noted that the assessee had sufficient reason and reasonable cause for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1516/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987 (2) SC, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 08.02.2017 declaring income of Rs.4,70,920/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine whether the cash deposits have been made from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 18.09.2017 was issued and served to the assessee. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and during the course of assessment proceedings, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. Thereafter, the AO obtained bank statement from the bank. Thereafter, further opportunities were granted to the assessee but there was no response. Therefore, final show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 07.11.2018 and time was granted till 19.11.2018. In response to the notice, assessee filed written submissions on 20.11.2018 stating that he is employee of M/s. Hindustan Associates as Team Leader for Recovery of overdues of two wheeler loans granted by M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd., and under his guidance 12- 15 collection executives are working who recover the overdue collections from the customers by cash and remit the same to assessee’s SB Accounts (The Karnataka Bank and IDBI Bank). Thereafter, the said amount is remitted to M/s. Bajaj Finance in favour of Hindustan Associates. In this regard, cash deposit slip to prove that the amount is deposited to Bajaj Finance in favour of Hindustan Associates of Rs.1,11,95,619/- is submitted. The AO examined the slips and he was not satisfied and the assessee also did not submit any agreement. The AO noted that submission of assessee was not satisfactory. Accordingly, he added cash deposit of Rs.1,06,17,581/- under section 69A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1516/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice on the registered email ID but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Therefore, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that notice issued by the learned CIT(A) were not served to the assessee or might have settled in the spam folder. Therefore, assessee could not represent his case and before the AO, assessee furnished the documents and he has rejected. There was no intimation to disregard the statutory notices issued by the Revenue authority and he undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee shall represent his case with cogent documents for substanting the cash deposits in his bank account. 6. On the other hand, learned DR strongly objected for giving one more chance to the assessee. The repetitive disregarding of the notices issued by the Revenue authorities are very much clear from the Order of both the authorities below, therefore, the AO was bound to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act. 7. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire materials available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that case has been decided ex-parte at the CIT(A) level for non prosecution by the assessee .The AO has not considered the assessee’s submissions Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of JAO for fresh consideration and JAO is directed to decide the issue as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say that assessee shall co-operate with the Revenue and not seek Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1516/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. In case of Failure no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 25.11.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "