SHARANAPPA ,YADAGIR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YADGIR

ITA 1198/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Sharanappa against the ex-parte order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee had not filed his income tax return, and subsequent notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were not responded to. Consequently, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed due to non-response from the assessee. The Tribunal considered the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-proceedings as a reason for non-compliance and decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, acknowledging the legal complexities introduced by the e-assessment scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824853 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Re Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar vs. DCIT, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SAHANA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 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. 1198/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sharanappa, Near Primary School Agarthirth, Agani Shorapur, Yadagir – 585 216. Karnataka PAN: FEUPS2173M Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Yadagir. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sahana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the ex-parte order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 27/03/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and he has not filed his return of income. The AO based on the information had found that the assessee had carried out the cash transactions during the A.Y. 2015-16 and therefore a notice u/s. 148 was issued. The assessee had not responded to the said notice and thereafter several notices u/s. 142(1) were issued and also a show cause notice was issued. The assessee had not Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 1198/Bang/2025 responded to any of the notices and therefore the AO had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Even before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had not responded and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal on merits and dismissed the same on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce any evidence / submissions in support of the appeal proceedings. 3. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee being not familiar with the e-proceedings had not viewed the portal to reply to the various notices issued by the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that they are having all the records to show that the assessment made ex-parte is not sustainable. The Ld.AR also filed an application to admit the additional grounds in which they raised a ground that the order of the jurisdictional AO is against the e-assessment scheme and therefore consequential proceedings are also bad in law and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Re Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar vs. DCIT in W.P. No. 28182 of 2024 and also furnished a copy of the judgment and prayed to allow the appeal on this legal ground. 5. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the definition of assessing officer will include both the jurisdictional AO as well as the faceless AO and therefore the order cannot be found fault on the said reasoning. Further, the Ld.DR brought to our notice that the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and prayed that the said legal ground may not be decided at this stage. Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 1198/Bang/2025 6. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The assessee raised a legal plea that the jurisdictional assessing officer has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act after the introduction of the e-assessment scheme. We have also considered the fact that the issue is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore at present, we are not adjudicating this issue and left it open to the assessee to raise the same as and when the same is required. 8. We have also considered the fact that the assessment order as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. Before us, it is the contention of the assessee that the assessee had all the records to show that the cash deposits are from the known sources. 9. Considering the said facts, we are inclined to set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit this issue to the file of the AO for making denovo assessment after hearing the assessee. We also make it clear that the assessee should co-operate with the department to complete the assessment as expeditiously as possible otherwise it is open to the AO to pass an order in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice – President Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st December, 2025. /MS / Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 1198/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 "