SANJEEVKUMAR UMAKANTH KHYADE,BIDAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIDAR

ITA 1746/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Sanjeevkumar Umakanth Khyade against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Bidar, had initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on substantial cash transactions in the assessee's bank accounts. The assessee, after initially not filing a return, later submitted it, but the assessment was made on a total income significantly higher than reported, including additions based on estimated profits. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-response to notices, which were sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case and thus remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827265 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SAHANA T.H.M.
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1746/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Sanjeevkumar Umakanth Khyade, S/o. Umakanth Khyade, 6-40/B, Dubalgundi, Dubalgundi, Bidar – 585 418. PAN: BEUPK6611L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Bidar. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sahana T.H.M., Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06-01-2026 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 17/07/2025 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. The AO based on the information that the assessee had made cash withdrawals and deposits in his bank account maintained with the Union Bank of India and also based on the information that the assessee had cash withdrawals of Rs. 3,74,39,002/- and deposited cash of Rs. 25,000/- in the State Bank of India account, initiated Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 1746/Bang/2025 proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed his return of income and notices u/s. 143(2) as well as u/s. 142(1) were issued and after considering the objections, assessment was made u/s. 147 on a total income of Rs. 72,26,300/-. The AO also made addition based on the estimated profit at 8% of the gross receipts. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the 3 notices issued by the NFAC. 3. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR filed a synopsis and also enclosed the copies of the notices sent by the Ld.CIT(A) and also the print out of the portal and submitted that the hearing notices were sent to a wrong email ID and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the hearings and prayed to grant an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. We have perused the Ld.CIT(A) order in which it was mentioned that on three occasions, the assessee had not responded to the notices issued and served through the email address of the assessee and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the same. We have also perused the form 35 filed by the assessee in which the assessee had given an email address as [e-mail]. We have also perused the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A) which was filed as Annexure – 01. From the said copy of the notice, we found that the Ld.CIT(A) had communicated the hearing notices to an email ID [e-mail]. We have also perused page nos. 5 and 6 of the Annexure – 02 which is the printout taken from the portal Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 1746/Bang/2025 which shows the email ID as [e-mail]. Therefore there is no doubt that the Ld.CIT(A) had communicated the hearing notices to a wrong email ID even though in form 35, the assessee had given an email ID which is also updated in the portal of the department. We, therefore of the view that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration. We also direct the Ld.CIT(A) to send the hearing notices to the email ID of the assessee mentioned in form 35 and thereafter after hearing the assessee, the appeal may be decided on merits and in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice – President Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 06th January, 2026. /MS / 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 "