OM PRAKASH GIRGAONKAR,BIJAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR

ITA 943/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Om Prakash Girgaonkar, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed his earlier appeal against the assessment order by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The primary contention was the double addition made by the AO regarding the purchase of a property and the addition of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal noted that the same transaction was reported in both the TDS return filed by the assessee and the one filed by the Sub-Registrar, leading to a potential double addition. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim that the cash deposits were from a disclosed source under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) of 2016.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706907 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASANNA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Income from undisclosed sources; TDS
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2016-17 Om Prakash Girgaonkar, Tej Deep, Station Road, Bijapur – 586 101. PAN: ABTPG 6369G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & TPS, Bijapur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Prasanna, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by Om Prakash Girgaonkar (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2016-17 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(Appeals)] dated 20.2.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 29.11.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal raising several grounds of appeal but main grievance is that ld. AO has made double ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 7 addition with respect to purchase of property based on two annual information returns i.e. one on the basis of TDS made by assessee u/s 194IA and second on the basis of TDS return filed by the Sub registrar. Further addition was made of cash deposit in bank account received by assessee as a partner of firm which has made disclosure under IDS Scheme. 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual, is a non- filer of return. An order u/s. 148A(d) dated 16.3.2023 was passed wherein it was found that assessee has made a payment for purchase of immovable property and tax deducted u/s. 194IA is of Rs.124,05,708. The assessee has deposited a cash of Rs.13,05,000 in Corporation Bank and further has purchased immovable property valued at Rs.30 lakhs or more amounting to Rs.145,09,600. The total of escaped income was Rs.282,20,308. 4. The assessee, after issuing several notices, was issued a show cause notice on 9.8.2023 which was replied on 18.8.2023 seeking adjournment only. No supporting evidences were filed. However, subsequently it was stated that assessee has purchased immovable property in the form of residential flat at Pune for Rs.145,09,600. The source of the investment is that partnership firm in which assessee is a partner has declared income of Rs.966,11,300 under IDS Scheme, 2016 on 30.9.2016. Therefore, source of purchase of flat is out of IDS Declaration of Rs.1,14,07,153 as share of the assessee from that partnership firm and balance sum of Rs.37,50,000 is paid from the ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 7 bank account of Arun Girgaonkar, son of the assessee from IDBI Bank SB A/c No.170. TDS is also made on purchase of this property. 5. Based on this information, the AO further issued a show cause notice on 15.9.2023 which was not at all replied to. Subsequently on 30.10.2023 the assessee submitted copy of the purchase deed along with submissions. It was the claim of the assessee that assessee has purchased only 1 Flat at Pune and therefore the proposed addition on account of TDS made for purchase of property u/s. 194IA and also once again on account of purchase of property is improper. With respect to the amount deposited in the bank account, assessee has furnished the bank statement with ICICI Bank and Corporation Bank. From the above, the AO noted that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.117,29,000 in ICICI Bank A/c of Rs.13,05,000 in Corporation Bank for which no documentary evidences are provided. 6. Based on this, the order u/s. 144 of the Act was passed wherein the AO made an addition of Rs.130,34,000 being amount deposited in the Bank account a/c and also made an addition of Rs.265,59,308 on account of TDS statement for payment in consideration for purchase of immovable property and also purchased immovable property of Rs.145,09,600. Accordingly assessment order was passed at a total income of Rs.399,49,308 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 29.1.2024. 7. The assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 28.2.2024. The ld. CIT(A) issued 5 notices to the assessee at the email address mentioned in Form 35. However, ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 7 no response was received. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that these notices are received by the assessee. In para 6 after relying on several judicial precedents, he reached at a conclusion that assessee is not interested in availing the opportunities provided to it and therefore on the merits also he dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirming the action of the ld. AO. 8. The assessee aggrieved with the appellate order is in appeal. 9. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices as in Form 35 email id was mentioned of Mr. Arun, son of assessee, but could not locate the emails received from the CIT(A) and therefore assessee did not receive any opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that given an opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee would ensure that he may be heard. Further it was stated that the blatant error made by the ld. AO is that for one transaction he has made two additions in the hands of assessee. He submitted that assessee has deducted tax on the purchase of property wherein the amount stated to be Rs.124,05,708 and same transaction for purchase of property through Sub-Registrar reported at RS.145,09,600 was also added. He therefore submitted that addition of Rs.269,15,300 is double addition on account of single transaction. With respect to the deposit in the bank account, he submitted that there is no unaccounted money deposited by the assessee in any of the bank account,. Source of which is explained as IDS disclosure of partnership firm where assessee is a partner. He submitted that given an ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 7 opportunity, assessee would be able to explain the same before the lower authorities. 10. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that assessee has been granted 5 opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) and further several show cause notices by the AO, but the assessee has not availed any of the opportunity. Therefore, the orders of the ld. lower authorities cannot be interfered. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. It is the claim of the assessee that he has purchased one property. Assessee has deducted tax at source on purchase consideration u/s. 194IA of the Act. Therefore, there is only one transaction of purchase of immovable property reported in TDS return as well as the Sub Registrar’s return. The same transaction is also reported by the return filed by the Sub-Registrar for the reason that the property purchased is more than Rs.30 lakhs. Therefore, assessee claims that he has purchased only one property. The ld. AO has made addition on both the amounts reported in these two different returns concerning purchase of one property. Therefore the claim of the assessee is that there is a double addition. 12. The assessee also submitted that the amount deposited in the bank account is not unaccounted income of the assessee. The source of the transaction is the amount declared by a partnership firm under IDS, 2016 wherefrom the partners are allotted money. The same is source of cash deposit in the bank account as well as from the bank account the funds for purchase of the property were used. ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 7 13. It is also true that assessee was given many opportunities before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to respond to the many of such opportunities. Failure on the part of assessee for default, despite service of proper notices has resulted into substantial addition in the hands of assessee. Had the assessee availed of the opportunities, perhaps the assessment order and the appellate order would not have been passed without assessee being heard. There is no default on the part of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), but it is the fault of the assessee who did not avail the opportunities granted to him. It is also true that if the contention of the assessee is accepted, perhaps atleast the double addition on purchase of property would not survive, but the same is a matter of examination. 14. In view of the above facts and failure on the part of the assessee in availing of the opportunities granted, we restore the whole matter back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/- [Rupees Two Thousand Only] to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 90 days from the date of this order as costs and thereafter the assessee is required to submit details before the jurisdictional AO who has passed the order u/s. 144 of the Act. The ld. AO may examine the detail, grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then decide the issue on merits of the case. 15. Accordingly ground Nos.1 & 3 of the appeal are allowed with the above directions and other grounds on merits of the addition are restored back to the file of the ld. AO. ITA No.943/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 7 16. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 09th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 09th July, 2025. /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. "