SH. GURPREET SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-III(2), LUDHIANA

The assessee did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. Based upon information available with the

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), challenging, inter alia, the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the alleged non-service of statutory notices, the unsigned assessment order, and the addition made on account of cash deposits.

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that the assessment order supplied to him was unsigned and, therefore, void ab initio. Upon verification of the assessment records, the learned CIT(A) recorded a categorical finding that the office copy of the assessment order had been duly signed by

The learned CIT(A) also rejected the challenge to the reopening under section 147 and the alleged non-service of notice under section 148, observing that the assessee had participated in the reassessment proceedings through his authorised representative and had never objected to the service of notice before the Assessing Officer.

On merits, the learned CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in the form of an agreement to sell dated 22.07.2008 executed between the assessee and his father-in-law, Shri Major Singh, for sale of agricultural land. A remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer. During the remand proceedings, Shri Major Singh confirmed payment of earnest money of Rs.38 lakhs but could substantiate the source only to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs through documentary evidence relating to the sale of agricultural land. Since the source of the remaining amount could not be established, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat Rs.18 lakhs as explained and to verify the actual amount of cash deposits while giving effect to the appellate order. The appeal was thus partly allowed.

In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the learned Departmental Representative filed a report dated 08.12.2025, wherein it was submitted that the relevant assessment records were not traceable and, therefore, it could not be ascertained whether any order giving effect to the appellate order had been passed. It was further submitted that, in view of the non- availability of the assessment records, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Accordingly, the appeal was heard ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and examining the material available on record.

The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the contents of the report dated 08.12.2025 and submitted that since the assessment records were not traceable, it was not possible to verify whether the directions contained in the order

We have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and have carefully perused the entire material available on record. The controversy before us is no longer with respect to the merits of the addition or the correctness of the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Rather, the issue is confined to the implementation of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A), which admittedly attained finality. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.03.2025, the Revenue has reported that the assessment records are not traceable and, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether an order giving effect to the appellate order has ever been passed.

In our considered opinion, the aforesaid stand taken by the Revenue cannot be accepted. The inability of the Department to trace its own records is merely an administrative lapse and cannot be permitted to defeat the statutory rights accrued to an assessee under a valid appellate order. An order passed by the learned CIT(A) is binding upon the Assessing Officer unless it is modified, reversed or stayed by a competent

The plea that the assessment records are not available cannot furnish a legal justification for non-implementation of a binding appellate order. If the original records are not traceable, it is always open to the Assessing Officer to reconstruct the assessment records from the available material, including the appellate order, remand report, assessment records available electronically, departmental records and such other documents as may be necessary for implementing the appellate directions.

In the present case, the learned CIT(A) had specifically directed the Assessing Officer to treat a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- as explained and thereafter verify the actual quantum of cash deposits while giving effect to the appellate order. Those directions continue to hold the field and are required to be implemented in letter and spirit. The Revenue cannot simply express its inability by stating that the records are not traceable. Such a plea cannot nullify or render ineffective a judicial order passed by the appellate authority. Administrative lapses of the Department cannot operate to the prejudice of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the aforesaid directions.