SYEDAHMEDULLA,OLD BAMBOO BAZAR CROSS SHIVAJI NAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(2),BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

ITA 416/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Syedahmedulla, a wholesaler of broiler chicken, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 69A and 68 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The AO had treated unexplained cash deposits and sundry creditors as unexplained money and unexplained credit respectively, due to lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The assessee, facing difficulties in managing his tax affairs online due to his age and business background, was granted an opportunity to present his case again before the Ld.CIT(A) after the Tribunal found valid reasons for his previous non-appearance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396760 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDESH N GADDI
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 416/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Syedahmedulla, No. 21 M. 1st Street, Old Bamboo Baar Cross, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051. PAN: AACPU6002G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(2)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee filed this appeal with a delay of 107 days for which he enclosed an affidavit explaining the said delay. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that because of his age as well as his business background, he was not able to follow up the income tax proceedings in the online mode and submitted that he came to know about the order only when the bank Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 416/Bang/2025 account was attached by the AO in the month of February, 2025 and prayed that an opportunity may be granted to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. We have perused the delay condonation affidavit and the assessment order and to render substantial justice, we are condoning the said delay of 107 days so that the appeal could be taken up for further hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a wholesaler of broiler chicken in the name and style of M/s. M.N. Broilers. The case was selected for complete scrutiny because there were huge cash deposits during the year. Notices were issued u/s. 142(1) on 08/07/2019 and 11/11/2019 but the assessee had not responded to the said notices. The AO obtained the bank statements from the banks and based on the said entries, a show cause notice was issued. Later, some details were furnished and based on the said explanation, the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In the said order, the AO had treated the cash deposits for which proper explanation has not been offered as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The AO also made the sundry creditors as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act since the assessee had not furnished the details of the sundry creditors along with the bank statements for having credited in their books. 5. The assessee challenged the said order of the AO before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee raised several grounds of merits. But unfortunately, the assessee had not responded to the 8 notices issued on various dates and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the issue based on the documents available with him and confirmed the additions made u/s. 69A and 68 of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is in the business of broiler chicken and has no knowledge to follow the appeal Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 416/Bang/2025 through the online mode and therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate his case before the Ld.CIT(A). 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 also considered the business activities carried on by the assessee and his knowledge in following up of the appeal through online and satisfied ourselves that there are valid reasons for not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A). Further, the additions were made u/s. 69A and 68 of the Act only on the ground that the assessee had not submitted any explanations. In such circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to place his submissions before the Ld.CIT(A). 10. 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 issue on merits and in accordance with law after considering the explanations offered by the assessee in respect of the additions made u/s. 69A and 68 of the Act. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 27th May, 2025. /MS / Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 416/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 "