NANDU,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), CHANDAULI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC), VARANASI BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.176/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nandu v. The Income Tax Officer Nai Dandi Mughalsarai Ward 3(3) Chandauli (U.P) Chandauli TAN/PAN:AOCPN2664N (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sabayasachi Chakraborty, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.06.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of the information that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.30,32,500/- in his Bank Account No.360402011001995 maintained with Union Bank of India, Parao, Chandauli during the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) after issuing Notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed his

ITA No.176/VNS/2024 Page 2 of 5

return of income declaring income of Rs.88,600/- under the head income from other sources and of Rs.1,65,800/- as agricultural income. The assessee also submitted before the AO, vide reply dated 21.11.2019, that he had sold an agricultural land on 10.08.2011 for a consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-. The AO noticed from the Sale Deed of the said property that the same was in the names of Shri Nandu Yadav (assessee under appeal), Shri Vikram Yadav and Shri Munni Lal and, accordingly, the 1/3rd share of the assessee was worked out at Rs.5,33,333/-. Further, from the Statement of Bank Account No.360402011001995 maintained with Union Bank of India, Parao, Chandauli, the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited Rs.26,87,500/- in cash and Rs.5,00,000/- through transfer on 11.08.2011 after sale of the land. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of difference between the share of sale proceeds of the land of Rs.5,33,333/- and the total deposits of Rs.31,87,500/- (Rs.26,87,500 + Rs.5,00,000) in his Bank Account No.360402011001995 maintained with Union Bank of India, Parao, Chandauli on 11.08.2011, which came to Rs.26,54,167/- (Rs.31,87,500 – Rs.5,33,333), the same was treated as unexplained investment of the assessee from unexplained sources and was added to the income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act.

ITA No.176/VNS/2024 Page 3 of 5

2.1 Further, the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited Rs.2,70,000/- on 09.09.2011 and Rs.75,000/-, totaling to Rs.3,45,000/- on 17.11.2011 in his Bank Account maintained with Union Bank of India, Parao, Chandauli. The same was also treated as unexplained investment of the assessee from unexplained sources and was added to the income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act.

2.2 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.30,87,767/-.

3.0 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.

4.0 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.176/VNS/2024 Page 4 of 5

prayed that the addition being unlawful may kindly be deleted. 3. The learned CIT Appeal as well as authority below erred in law as well as on facts in reopening the case u/s 147/148. The AO erroneously treated the entire deposit as unexplained on presumption and surmises only which may kindly be declared as null and void. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal before the hearing of appeal.

5.0 None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application dated 11.05.2026, seeking adjournment, on behalf of the assessee was placed before me citing the reason that the assessee has changed his Counsel and has engaged a new Counsel, who requires some time to thoroughly review the case records and, therefore, the appeal may be adjourned. However, looking into facts of the case, I reject the adjournment application and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

6.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R., supporting the orders of the authorities below, submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

7.0 I have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that the assessee was non- compliant before the authorities below. However, looking into

ITA No.176/VNS/2024 Page 5 of 5

these facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the Assessee to explain the Bank transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. I also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/07/2026.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:23/07/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR