PRATHIK RAVIKUMAR ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

ITA 1015/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Sri Prathik Ravikumar, against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The primary issue was the unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts for the assessment year 2018-19. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had treated these deposits as unexplained money, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed ex-parte. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present his case and the necessary documents, which allegedly proved that the deposits were transfers from his parents' accounts, not unexplained cash.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711316 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. RAJAMANOHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AVINASH MALLYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1015/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Prathik Ravikumar, No. 4252, Phoenix One Bangalore, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 010. PAN: CCSPR5642D Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Avinash Mallya, Advocate Revenue by : Shri R. Rajamanohar, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25-07-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/02/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income and based on the information that he had deposited huge cash in his bank accounts, notice u/s. 148 was issued and subsequently, a notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued for which the assessee filed some details and contended that the cash deposits are made out of cash withdrawal from his bank account. The AO not satisfied with the explanations had confirmed the cash deposits made into his bank account in JSCBL Bank Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 1015/Bang/2025 and Axis Bank as unexplained money. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had issued several notices on 13/12/2024, 03/01/2025 and 27/01/2025 but the assessee had responded only to the notice dated 27/01/2025 and asked for an adjournment. The Ld.CIT(A) without granting an adjournment, had decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the same. 3. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the credits made into the bank accounts were all bank transfers effected by his father and his mother and therefore the said deposits could not be treated as unexplained money. The Ld.AR further submitted that the necessary proofs and confirmation of the credits into the bank account were available with him and the said documents could not be produced before the Ld.CIT(A) since the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity. The Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had granted three hearings and for the last hearing date, the assessee had filed an application for adjournment but without granting the adjournment, the Ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and therefore prayed an opportunity to furnish the details before the AO. 5. The Ld.DR submitted that in spite of several opportunities granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had not appeared and therefore the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is correct and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. We have perused the assessment order and in page 5 of the order, the AO had observed that the assessee had stated that the cash is withdrawn from one account and then deposited in another account maintained by assessee himself, but the source of cash is not submitted by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 1015/Bang/2025 From the above said finding, the AO had confirmed the additions since the source for the cash deposits are not submitted by the assessee. Before us, the assessee submitted that the credits into his bank accounts are originating from his parents’ bank account and therefore the source for the said deposits are nothing but the cash transfers from the parents’ bank account to the assessee’s bank account. We have also considered the submission that the assessee is having all the proofs in support of his claim and prayed an opportunity to produce the proofs before the AO. 8. Considering the said facts and circumstances, we are inclined to grant an opportunity for the assessee to appear before the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with the available proofs and documents in support of his case that the cash deposits were made from their parents’ bank account and therefore it could not be treated as an unexplained money. 9. We, therefore, set aside the assessment order as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue back to the AO for denovo consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 25th July, 2025. /MS / Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 1015/Bang/2025 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "