SHANTGOUDA HANAMANTGOUDA PATIL,BIJAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BIJAPUR

ITA 3123/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, a senior citizen and agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which dismissed his appeal on the grounds of non-compliance and failure to provide explanations for substantial cash deposits in his bank account. The Tribunal noted the assessee's medical condition, which prevented timely action, and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848592 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Bangalore
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH R GHALE
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEETAL BORKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144; 142(1); 139

Judgement Text

"ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil Prakruthi Colony Opp Kidney Foundation Solapur Road Bijapur Karnataka 586 101 PAN NO : BEQPP8833M Vs. ITO Ward 3 Bijapur APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Dr. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 21/11/2024 vide DIN and Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070511385(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order in the matter he did. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte solely on the ground of non-compliance, without adjudicating issued on merits and without ensuring effective opportunity of being heard, despite the assessee providing reasons for delay and being non- technical agriculturist. Hence, the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 2 of 8 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash deposits of Rs.15,33,500/- were out of agricultural income and withdrawals from existing loan funds as explained in Form-35 and Statement of Facts, and therefore treating the same as unexplained is erroneous. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case they addition under 69A is bad and is liable to be quashed in entirely. 5. Without prejudice, the impugned additions are excessively arbitrary, unreasonable and liable to be deleted in full. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 333 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an affidavit dated 27.12.2025 sworn before the notary public along with a medical certificate dated 25.11.2024 stating the reason for the delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and record: - Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 3 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 4 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 5 of 8 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 6 of 8 3.1 On going through the said affidavit dated 27/12/2025 as well as medical certificate dated 25/11/2024, we observed that the main cause for delay was due to the fact that the assessee being a senior citizen was suffering from Lumbo Sacral Canal Stenosis due to which the assessee was advised medical treatment and rest. Owing to said medical condition, the assessee was mostly confined to his home and was genuinely prevented from taking timely steps for filing the appeal. 4. Perused the record and having heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the ld. D.R., it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application as well as in affidavit are plausible and the sufficient cause been shown by the assessee which prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period and accordingly we inclined to condone the delay of 333 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. The Brief facts of the case as narrated by the ld. A.R. of the assessee is that the assessee being a senior citizen is Farmer having inherited agricultural lands and grow sugarcane on such lands. A notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to furnish return of income for the AY 2017-18, however the assessee had failed to furnish the return either u/s. 139 or in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act although assessee had deposited substantial cash of Rs.15,33,500/- in the Raddi Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Vijayapur Branch. Since the assessee could not explain the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 15,33,500/-, the same was brought to tax as per provisions of section 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act without allowing any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance or setoff of any loss. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 7 of 8 6. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment completed u/s. 144 of the Act on 16/11/2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that despite issuing 5 (Five) notices, the assessee did not file any submissions in response to any of the notices issued. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that the assessee, both during the assessment as well as appeal proceeding, had not furnished any explanation regarding the nature and source of cash deposited into the bank account. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC observed that assessee had neither filed any return of income nor produced any evidence of agricultural income or loan taken and therefore the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC find no infirmity in the additions made by the AO u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and hence dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. Again aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 21/11/2024, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 9. Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee being a senior citizen agriculturist could not represent his case before both the authorities below. Further, before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee requested that one more opportunity may be granted before the AO to substantiate the claim of the assessee. This being so, in the interest and justice and fair play and as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deemed it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for de-novo consideration in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant details/ record/ evidence in support of his claim or Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3123/Bang/2025 Shantgouda Hanamantgouda Patil, Bijapur Page 8 of 8 as required by AO for the completion of assessment. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitle for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Mar, 2026 Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 23rd Mar, 2026. 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. Printed from counselvise.com "