IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERR ITA No.647/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Shri. Sonnappa Srirama, No.23, Ground Floor, 8th Cross, Kaggadaspura, C. V. Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru – 560 093. PAN : CYJPS 8049 E	Vs.	ITO, Ward – 4(2)(3), Bengaluru.
APPELLANT		RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri. Gopi Krishna, CA Revenue by : Shri.Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department.

Date of hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024

O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice President:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 18.12.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is

2017-18.

2. The grounds raised read as follows:

1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in passing the ex-parte order without considering the fact that the cash deposits are made out of the cash sales made during the A.Y 2017-18.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deciding the appeal ex-parte on the ground that the appellant did not respond to the hearing notices and such finding is perverse as the appellant has sought adjournment.

5. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the faceless appeal scheme was newly introduced and therefore, the appellant was not aware of the procedure that all the hearing notices will be issued only to the assessee's registered email ID and therefore, could not file all the responses.

6. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that levying tax at 60% u/s.115BBE of the Act is not applicable for the deposits made prior to 15.12.2016.

7. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

3. There is a delay of 52 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of this appeal. We are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 52 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Assessee, an individual, is a proprietor of M/s. Sannhitha Enterprises. For the Assessment Year 2017-18, the return of income was filed declaring income of Rs.5,13,820/-. Assessment was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason of cash deposits made during the demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales and decrease in profitability compared to the preceding years. Since there was no response to the various notices issued, the entire cash deposit made during the demonetization period was added to the total income amounting to Rs.16,82,850/- under section 69A of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the Assessment completed, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee was issued notice to file evidence / written submission in support of the grounds raised in Form No.35. However, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document