TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on 31.3.2024 by the ITO, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore [ld.AO] was dismissed for the reason that assessee did not respond to 4 notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), hence it was held that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual earning income from rentals and interest, filed her return of income on 22.6.2017 at a total income of Rs. 7,93,970. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny to examine cash deposit during the demonetisation period. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 7.6.2019 at the returned income. 3. Subsequently notice u/s. 154 of the Act was issued to make an addition of Rs. 10,48....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case, assessee has a very strong case that 154 order made by the ld. AO is devoid of any merit. He submits that it is not a mistake apparent from the record resulted in to substantial addition to the income of assessee which could not have been the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act. He submits that it is neither an arithmetical error nor a mistake. Even otherwise on the merits, he submits that assessee has offered rental income which was received by the assessee in cash and same is deposited in his bank account. Therefore, the source of fund is out of rental income which was kept by the assessee as cash on hand and deposited after the demonetisation. For that the reason that why assessee did not appear before the ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as noted that a sum of Rs. 10,48,500 deposited in the Karnataka State Co-op. Bank and therefore rectification order u/s. 154 was issued on 31.03.2024 wherein it has been stated that there is a mistake apparent from record that assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 10,48,500 in Bank account No.1033102010001154 of KSC Bank during the demonetisation period is not added. Assessee submitted that cash is deposited out of her rental income. To support the argument, the assessee submitted copies of the rental agreements along with confirmation from the tenants of payment of rent in cash. The AO wanted to rectify the above order stating that rental agreements were in the name of Mr. V.P. Srinivas Reddy and not assessee and the PAN of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore I do not find that making an addition of Rs. 10,48,500 rejecting the source of the cash deposit is a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, I quash the rectification order passed by the ld. AO u/s. 154 of the Act passed by the ld. AO u/s. 154 of the Act. 9. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order not on the merits of the case, but holding that assessee did not respond to 4 notices issued by him, he held that assessee does not want to prosecute the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) is empowered to dispose of the appeal only on its merits. He is not empowered to dismiss the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution. Further, the notices sent by him are not at the email address stated by the assessee in Form 35, except on 1st occasi....