VINAY KUMAR SINGH,BHADOHI vs. ACIT RANGE, VARANASI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 221/VNS/2024Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 July 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues in dispute to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessment order had made additions on account of cash deposits during demonetization.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, and whether additions made under Section 69A were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 253(3),Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CA

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide orders dated 25.09.2023 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That in any view of the matter assessment framed u/s 144/143 (3) by order dated 30.12.2019 on Rs.31,32,830/- is bad both on the fact and in law. income of 2. That in any view of the matter the learned CIT Appeal was not correct to decide the appeal ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee hence the entire action is incorrect.

I.T.A. No. 221/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2

3.

That in any view of the matter both the two lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that cash deposit in bank during demonetization period was from disclosed sources and from regular books of account hence it is not correct to add the same u/s 69A of the Act without examining the correct facts hence entire action is incorrect. 4. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs.20,12,500/- as made by the assessing officer as per para 3 of the assessment order u/s 69A on account of cash deposit during demonetization period and his action as confirmed by the CIT Appeal is highly unjustified. 5. That in any view of the matter finding an observation of both the two lower authorities with regard to addition of Rs.20,12,500/- is totally incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case.” (B) The present appeal has been filed beyond the time prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing of the present appeal. The learned Departmental Representative expressed no objection to condonation of delay, as requested by the appellant assessee. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned under section 253(5) of the Act and the appeal is admitted.

(C) In this case, assessment order dated 30.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs. 31,32,830/. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 25.09.2023. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 25.09.2023.

(D) At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the impugned appellate order and the assessment order

I.T.A. No. 221/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3

were passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing, after hearing both sides and after due consideration, materials on record; the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(E) All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed off, in accordance with the aforesaid directions. For statistical purposes, the appeal is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 06/07/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 06/07/2026 SK, Sr.PS Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A)

Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →