RAJARAM PURUSHOTTAMA HEGDE,HUBBALLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

ITA 80/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajaram Purushottama Hegde, the proprietor of M/s. Hegde General Stores, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue arose from the assessee's failure to file a return of income, which led to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) issuing notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The ITO treated these deposits as unexplained investments under section 69A and the interest on these deposits as income from other sources. The assessee's appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-response to the notices. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not received proper notice of the hearings, as the notices were sent to an email address contrary to the assessee's explicit instructions. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits after a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712663 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GHALE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBRAMANYA BHAT
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 80/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Rajaram Purushottama Hegde, M/s. Hegde General Stores, No. 32, Dollars Colony, Savanur Badavane, Hubballi, Karnataka – 580 020. PAN: AEOPH1671Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Hubli. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Subramanya Bhat, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept. Date of Hearing : 14-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/03/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and not filed his return of income for the A.Y. Based on the information received by the AO about the cash deposits made into his bank account, notice u/s. 148 was issued. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued. The Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 80/Bang/2025 assessee had not responded to the said notices. The AO had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act and also treated the interest received on deposits as income from other sources. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because the assessee had not responded to any of the notices. 3. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The appeal was filed with a delay of 229 days for which the assessee filed a delay condonation application and in the affidavit filed in support of the said delay condonation application, assessee submitted that he has not received any physical notice.He also submitted that he is an aged person and running a general provision store and has no knowledge in operating the systems. The assessee further submitted that the said delay is not intentional and prayed to condone the said delay by taking a liberal view to do substantial justice. 5. We have considered the said application filed by the assessee and the reasons stated therein and also considered that the delay is only 229 days, we took a lenient view and condoned the said delay in filing the appeal and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not received the various hearing notices and drawn our attention to form 35 in which in the email address column, the following email ID has been mentioned i.e. [e-mail] and in the next column, it was stated that the notices / communication may not be sent to the said email ID. The Ld.AR also filed the copy of the notices sent through the e- proceedings in which the notices were sent to the email ID as mentioned in form 35 even though the assessee had requested not to send the notices to the said email ID. The Ld.AR therefore submitted that proper opportunity Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 80/Bang/2025 was not granted to the assessee by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed another opportunity to appear before him. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the documents in support of the merits of the case. 7. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. We have perused the form 35 and the copy of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). It is a fact that the assessee had given the email ID in Form 35 but specifically stated that no notice could be sent to the said email ID. In spite of that, the Ld.CIT(A) had issued the notices to the said email ID and therefore the assessee has no knowledge about the appeal hearings. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee is having valid reasons for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A). We, therefore set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 30th July, 2025. /MS / Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 80/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 "