VEENA ANAND,BENGALURU V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD NO. 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

ITA 583/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Veena Anand against the order of the CIT(A), which had dismissed her appeal due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee had initially declared an income significantly lower than the turnover reported in her GST returns, leading to a scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued several notices during the assessment proceedings, but the assessee failed to respond adequately, resulting in various additions to her income. The CIT(A) also issued notices during the appellate proceedings, which were not complied with, leading to the dismissal of her appeal. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's claim of not receiving the notices, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide substantial documentary evidence to support her claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712861 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BALRAM R RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences

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.583/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Smt. Veena Anand, No.148, 6th Main, Bagalur cross, Yelahanka, Bangalore – 560 063. PAN : AHIPV 3465 F Vs. ACIT, Ward – 2(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Balram R Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against CIT(A)’s order vide DIN &Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070147553(1) dated 06.11.2024. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 02.11.2022 declaring income of Rs.1,11,66,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine low income from TCS receipts Liquor and Turnover shown in ITR is substantially lower in comparison to turnover shown in GSTR 9C return. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 01.06.2023. Subsequently, other notices were issued to the assessee and details were called for. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued several notices to the assessee. But there was no response and show cause notice was also issued to the assessee which is reproduced in the Assessment Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.583/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 Order. Assessee filed reply but the same was not accepted and AO made various additions. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and during the appellate proceedings, various notices were issued to the assessee but the same were not complied with. Accordingly, for want of representation from the assessee’s side, appeal was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that notices issued by the CIT(A) might have got settled in the spam folder and hence was not noticed. Therefore, assessee was unable to represent her case and he further submitted that the assessee’s intention was not to disrespect the notices issued by the Revenue authorities and requested and undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee will substantiate her claim with supporting evidences. 5. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of authorities and submitted that during the assessment proceedings as well as before the learned CIT(A), assessee did not represent her case. Therefore, both the lower authorities were bound to decide the case ex-parte and the learned DR objected to any further chance to the assessee. 6. Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS with the reasons stated that there is difference in the turnover reported in financial statements and various notices were issued by the AO but the assessee could not substantiate the same with the supporting documentary evidences before the CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) has given chance to the assessee for substantiating his claim but was not complied with. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.583/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 Considering the submissions of the assessee and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the jurisdictional CIT(A) with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law and assessee is directed to prove the cash deposits with documentary evidence to substantiate her claim and not to seek unnecessary adjudication for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member- Bangalore. Dated: 31.07.2025. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "