PUVVADI SUBHA ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1697/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Puvvadi Sudha, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) regarding the assessment of income for the year 2017-18, particularly concerning substantial deposits made during the demonetization period. The ITO had applied section 44AD of the Income Tax Act to these deposits and made an addition of Rs.33,61,650 under section 69A. The CIT(A) initially dismissed the appeal in limine due to the absence of the appellant's representation. The ITAT, upon reviewing the circumstances, decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper documentation of proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470492 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R. GHALE; STANDING COUNSEL
• Assessee Lawyers: THARUN KOTHARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133(6); 44AD; 69A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.1697/Bang/2024 Puvvadi Sudha, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1697/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Puvvadi Sudha No.109/76, 4th A Main B.G. Road Hulimavu Bangalore 560 076 PAN NO : FYKPS6110J Vs. ITO Ward-4(3)(1) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Tharun Kothari, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of Hearing : 07.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2024 O R D E R PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of CIT(A) dated 13.3.2024 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1062507750(1) and relates to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. However, at the outset, the counsel for the assessee is praying to restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 3. There is a delay of 115 days in filing this appeal before ITAT. Explaining the cause of delay, the counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was forwarding all the notices to the concerned professional who was handling the proceedings before the lower authorities. However, the concerned Professional was not complying ITA No.1697/Bang/2024 Puvvadi Sudha, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 with the departmental authorities due in time due to which the assessee could not be able to get the orders in time. 4. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. 5. It is settled position of law that assessee will not suffer on account of the mistake of his counsel. Therefore, we hereby condone the delay of 115 days in the present appeal and proceed to decide this appeal. 6. Short facts giving rise to the filing of present appeal are that assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 26.6.2024 declaring a total income of Rs.3,45,530/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has deposited substantial amount during the demonetization period in its savings bank account. Thereafter, notices u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) were also issued by the revenue for obtaining information of the cash deposit during demonetization period. The AO lastly applying the provisions of section 44AD of the Act to the gross amount deposited by the assessee in current bank account computed the income of the assessee. The AO has also made an addition of Rs.33,61,650/- u/s 69A of the Act in respect of the bank accounts operated by the assessee in its individual capacity. Aggrieved of the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) and challenged the order of AO. However, no one appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 6.1 Before us, the solitary prayer of the assessee is that another opportunity of being heard may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. ITA No.1697/Bang/2024 Puvvadi Sudha, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 7. Ld. D.R. appearing virtually on behalf of revenue contended that some cost may kindly be imposed upon the assessee. 8. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee has mentioned that several opportunities were given to the assessee, however, he failed to mention the details of the notices of hearing actually served upon the assessee. Further, the CIT(A) has also not followed the provisions of section 250(6), which provisions provide that the CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order in respect of the averments made by an assessee in his appeal. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th Nov, 2024 Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) Vice President Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 11th Nov, 2024. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "