PANKAJ SADHANIDHAR,GUWAHATI, ASSAM vs. ITO WARD 1(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 466/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 September 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the prayer of the assessee's counsel, decided to remit the case back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to substantiate their claims with cogent documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income despite substantial bank transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of unexplained money, cash deposits, inflated business receipts, purchase of motor vehicles, and denial of Section 44AD benefits. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether additions made on account of unexplained money, cash deposits, inflated business receipts, vehicle purchases, and denial of Section 44AD benefits were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 69C,Section 44AD,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri JP Gupta, FCA
For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, CIT-DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026Pronounced: 03.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, GUWAHATI (Through Virtual hearing at Kolkata) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 466/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Pankaj Sadhanidhar, Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Guwahati, D-502, Spanish Garden, Zoo Aayakar Bhawan, G.S. Road, Opp- Zoo, Guwahati - Road, Guwahati - 781005 781024 PAN: BVVPS4773H APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri JP Gupta, FCA Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, CIT-DR

Date of hearing : 01.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 17.07.2026, DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026- 27/1091202616(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 on the following grounds:

2 ITA No. 466/GTY/2026 Pankaj Sadhanidhar “1. That the CIT(A) order dated 17.07.2026 passed U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as well as on the facts of the case in upholding order dated 24.03.2026 passed by assessing officer U/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961. 2. That the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 without providing sufficient and meaningful opportunity to the appellant and as such the order is bereft of natural justice is liable to be deleted in full. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 as valid. 4. That the CIT(A) erred law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the addition on account of treating of personal loan amounting to Rs. 3,16,79,940/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the appellant and taxing the same under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961. 5. That the CIT(A) erred law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the addition on account of cash deposits made in the bank amounting to Rs.21,95,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the appellant and taxing the same under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961. 6. That the CIT(A) erred law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the addition on account of alleged inflated business receipt amounting to Rs.67,94,191/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 to the total income of the appellant without appreciating that facts that the revised return filed pursuant to notice under section 148 correctly reflected the actual business receipts after reconciliation of bank transactions. 7. That the CIT(A) erred law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the addition on account of purchase of motor vehicles amounting to Rs. 55,41,000/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income- tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the appellant and taxing the same under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961 despite of the facts that the appellant having established that the purchases were financed substantially through loans and the balance was met out of explained sources. 8. That the CIT(A) erred law as well as on facts of the case in upholding the addition on account of denial of benefit of section 44AD of the Income Tax Act,1961 amounting to Rs. 85,17,510/- and added the same to the total income of the appellant as income from profession. 9. That the additions/disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) are arbitrary, unwarranted and without any basis and are therefore liable to be deleted. 10. That the appellant craves leave to submit any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3 ITA No. 466/GTY/2026 Pankaj Sadhanidhar 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the insight portal of the Income Tax Department, in accordance with high risk transaction formulated by CBDT. It was observed that the assessee has undertaken transactions during the period and return of income has not been filed. There is escapement of income of Rs. 1,48,56,000/-. Accordingly, after due compliance the notice u/s 148 dated 30.08.2024 was issued to the assessee. In compliance to the notice the assessee filed return of income and statutory notices were issued to the assessee, the assessee furnished reply time to time partly which is considered by the AO after considering the detailed written submission of the assessee, the income was determined at Rs. 36,74,920/-.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of first appellate proceeding, the assessee furnished detailed written submission, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the same, he upheld the order of AO.

4.

Aggrieved from the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

5.

The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that both the authorities have not considered properly the submissions of the assessee which requires re- consideration, requested and undertook that one more chance may be given to the assessee to represent the case of the assessee.

4 ITA No. 466/GTY/2026 Pankaj Sadhanidhar 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that the ample opportunities were given to the assessee and he does not have serious objection.

7.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available before us. We noted that the assessee had substantial bank transaction but did not file return of income and assessee has different kinds of source of income. During the course of assessment proceeding, the assessee has also furnished reply as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) too. Considering the facts of the case and prayer of the Ld. Counsel and in the interests of justice, we are remitting this back to the file of AO for fresh consideration and decision as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 03.09.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03.09.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.

5 ITA No. 466/GTY/2026 Pankaj Sadhanidhar

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY// (MANISH BHOI) DEUPTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →