ASIF IQBAL,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD 23(1), HOOGHLY

For that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

For that on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) without appreciating that assumptions of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act by the A.O. was in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not holding: (a) That the initiation of proceedings u/s 148A(b) and subsequent passing of Order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 52(1), Delhi is bad in as much as the A.O. did not have jurisdiction over the appellant. (b) That, without jurisdiction, the transfer of jurisdiction from Delhi to Bangalore without there being any Order u/s 127 of the Act is wrong and uncalled for which renders the assessment proceeding bad-in-law, liable to be annulled and/or quashed. (c) That the framing of Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Bangalore is wrong in as much as the A.O. did not have jurisdiction over the appellant for the above mentioned reasons. (d) That the appellant having its address in the state of West Bengal neither the ITO at Delhi nor Bangalore has jurisdiction upon him which renders the passing of Orders u/s 148A(b) and 148A(d) by the A.O. at Delhi and subsequently Order of Assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act by the A.O. at Bangalore is wrong and deserves to be annulled. Without Prejudice

For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating and disposing the appeal without stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for decision as is provided u/s 250(6) of the Act.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in coming to a conclusion that the submission made by the appellant before the A.O. or in support of Grounds of Appeal is non-compliant and negligent which gives rise to the fact that the appellant has nothing to say in this regard.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly concluded that the decision of the A.O. is correct towards adding back the alleged unexplained amount of money for Rs.3,19,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) wrongly concluded that the appellant has not been able to refute the additions made by the A.O. on account of interest and salary income.

For that the Order of the Ld. CIT (A) is totally perverse in nature and in utter disregard to the provisions of Law as well as against the facts and circumstances of the case.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have required the A.O. to make proper inquiries and/or investigation with regard to the submissions made by the appellant denying the entire transactions which have been treated as income u/s 68 of the Act.

For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly appreciating the facts and submissions as made out by the appellant.

For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above Grounds."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for AY 2018-19. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') made an addition of ₹3,19,40,000/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act, an addition of ₹1,59,395/- as interest income u/s 56 of the Act, and an addition of ₹3,60,000/- as salary income u/s 16 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO framed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 08.03.2023 and determined the total income at ₹3,24,59,395/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the assessment order, the grounds of appeal and further evidence provided by the assessee including 1. Police complaint to Bibwebadi Police Pune, 2. Police complaint to Bidhanagar PS, 3. DGGI Letter, 4. Complaint to Kolkata HQ and 5. Complaint to Police Commissioner Pune. IN the complaints, the assessee stated that the company M/s Gujarat Ispat Pvt. Ltd., in which the assessee was an employee, had opened a proprietorship firm in the name of M/s Steel Mart in which they made the assessee the proprietor and M/s Gujarat Ispat Pvt. Ltd. had made cash deposits in the bank accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the evidence and the judicial pronouncements on the facts but held that since the assessee had failed to make any satisfactory submission before the Ld. AO in support of the grounds of appeal, he was non-compliant and negligent which gave rise to an ITA No(s). 2358/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2018-19 undisputable conclusion that the assessee had nothing more to say in this regard; he, therefore, confirmed the addition of ₹3,19,40,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act and did not allow the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to page 3 of the assessment order whereby the assessment has been concluded u/s 144 of the Act after considering unexplained cash deposit of ₹3,19,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, interest income of ₹1,59,395/- u/s 56 of the Act and salary income of ₹3,60,000/- u/s 16 of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to page 9 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in which the documents as mentioned in the previous paragraph were submitted but the same were considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded before the Ld. AO so that the facts could be properly explained before him as the Ld. CIT(A) had not considered the evidence filed and merely upheld the ex parte order of the Ld. AO.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Bench noted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is a cryptic order and the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act have not been complied with. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter before the Ld. AO to pass a fresh assessment order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard and after considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee shall file necessary evidence in support of the plea that the money did not belong to him but belonged to the company and the Ld. AO shall examine the same and other evidence filed and thereafter, frame the assessment order de novo as per law. Hence, all the Grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st September, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)