SUBHASH CHANDRA,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD -4(1)(1), ALIGARH

PER:BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, A.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 passed in appeal No CIT(A), Aligarh/10366/2018-19 by the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner of Income Tax), u/s. 250 of the

ITA 341/Agr/2026

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2010- 11, wherein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

“5. The another ground taken by the appellant is that the Id. AO has failed to appreciate that amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- deposited in the bank account of the appellant pertained to the cousins and the appellant has not concerned with it. 5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, as per information received by the AO, the assessee had deposited the cash amounting to Rs. 27,00,000/- in his saving bank account with State Bank of India during the relevant year. In this regard, several notices were issued to the assessee to prove his genuineness. But assessee never complied of the notices issued by the AO. 5.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant stated that the amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- deposited in his bank account pertained to the cousins. Further, he stated that his cousins has sold his ancestral agriculture land at Rs. 27,00,000/- on 18.02.2010 and deposited the said amount into the assessee's bank account on the same day. The appellant has not clarified about the the ownership of the agricultural land which was sold by his cousins. The appellant has also not given the proof of the fact in form of bank account of the cousins that the sale money was returned to the cousins within reasonable time.

2 | P a g e

ITA 341/Agr/2026

5.3 The appellant has not submitted the copy of bank statement, sale deed, sale/purchase agreement, details of agricultural land, his cousins bank details etc. by which it can be proved that the said property related to his cousins, it has been further noticed that the appellant has failed to explain anything during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings about the source of deposit of cash or about sale of agricultural land situated in Village-Karthala, Post- Iglas, Aligarh-202001. No case of sale of agricultural land has either been demonstrated by the appellant. In view of the above circumstances, the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee is to be treated unexplained. The only defence of the assessee in the present case is the facts narrated in the statement of facts attached with Form 35, but in absence of any evidence or copy of bank account of the appellant or copy of sale deed no relief could be granted to assessee.” 4. Aggrieved with the said order the assessee has filed an appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal.

“1. Because the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the order passed u/s 144/147 by the JAO, Aligarh. 2. Because the Assessment completed u/s 144/147 of the I.T. Act in consequences to the issue of notice u/s 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the approval granted by Ld. PCIT-1, Agra is mechanical and not in accordance with the law as required u/s 151 of I.T. Act. Hence, the entire re-assessment proceedings deserve to be quashed. 3. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the addition of Rs.27,00,000/ made by the Id. JAO, alleged cash deposited in bank account of the appellant. 4. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that the cousins of the assessee has sold their ancestral agriculture land during the year and due to dispute arose among the cousins, the sale consideration was deposited in the bank account of the assessee and assessee was not concerned with it. 5. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that the cousin of the assessee had sold their ancestral agriculture land on 18-02-2010 and cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee on the same day i.e. on 18- 02-2010 and repaid to them within a month after settled the dispute. 6. Because the Ld. CIT (A), has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily passed an ex-parte order u/s 250 for non-compliance of notices issued during the appellate proceedings. 7. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that the assesse has clearly mentioned in Form No. 35 (memo of appeal) that he has no e-mail address and hence notice may not be sent at e-mail. The appeal notices 3 | P a g e

ITA 341/Agr/2026

not served at the appellant and hence not complied with and wrongly dismissed the appeal. 8. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that he has moved application u/s 154 and written submissions and relevant documents were uploaded but not considered and simply rejected the request of the assessee and held that there no mistake in passing the earlier order u/s 250. 9. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that the appeal notices sent at mail address of other person, who never brought it into the knowledge of the appellant, hence not responded. 10. Because considering the facts of the case and the legal position the addition made by the Assessing Officer should have been deleted. The Ld. CIT (A) has arbitrarily erred in confirming the same. 11. Because the appellant craves to add amend alter modify or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

4 | P a g e

ITA 341/Agr/2026

5 | P a g e

ITA 341/Agr/2026

Order pronounced in the Open Court on- 09.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 03.09.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

6 | P a g e