MAHENDRA SINGH PARIHAR,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), KANPUR, KANPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mahendra Singh Parihar v. The Income Tax Officer 126/36, J Block Ward 2(2) Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur (U.P) TAN/PAN:AWSPS5407M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent by: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.03.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai 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 information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs.50,76,390/- during the year under consideration . The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case of the assessee 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 to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring a

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 9

total income of Rs.2,27,170/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.4,54,000/- in his Bank Account No.02981930006074 maintained with HDFC Bank. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of this cash deposits. The submission of the assessee before the AO was that the cash deposit made by him was out of surplus from his Cassettes business. Since the AO was not satisfied with the submission of the assessee, he treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee and added Rs.4,54,000/- to the total income of the assessee.

2.1 The AO further noted that there were credits of Rs.8,60,461/- in his Bank account maintained with the HDFC Bank. Since the assessee had failed to furnish the source of these credits of Rs.8,60,461/-, the AO treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee added the same to the total income of the assessee.

2.2 The AO also noted that the assessee had taken cash loan of Rs.2,36,000/- from four individuals. The assessee had submitted before the AO that the assessee had taken cash loan amounting to Rs.2,36,000/- from four persons, however, the assessee failed to produce them before the AO and, therefore, the AO treated the cash loan of Rs.2,36,000/- a undisclosed income

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 9

of the assessee and the same was also added to the income of the assessee.

2.3 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.17,77,630/-.

2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.

2.5 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 9

to have reason to believe for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently the impugned reassessment order is illegal, void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. That the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additions made by the Ld. A.O. in the assessment without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the Ld. A.O. is without lawful jurisdiction. 5. That the sanction purportedly obtained under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mechanical and non est in the eyes of law therefore, consequent impugned reassessment order is illegal and void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 6. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai has failed to appreciate the fact that the Ld. A.O. did not confront the material obtained 6 at the back of the assessee during the assessment proceedings, therefore the addition made to the returned income of the appellant is unsustainable in law. 7. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary addition of Rs.4,54,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant on account of 7 Undisclosed Income without appreciating and considering the facts of the case correctly and without bringing any cogent material on record therefore the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 9

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 9

. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 154 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 03.11.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit of the assessee, stating therein that the impugned order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai was sent by the Department to the e- mail address of the Counsel of the assessee, Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, who died on 16.09.2025 and, therefore, the assessee was not aware about passing of this order by the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai. It was further stated that the assessee, later on, approached the Legal Heir of the Counsel, Late Shri Pradeep Mehrotra and obtained a copy of the impugned order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Mumbai and, thereafter engaged a Counsel through who an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. It was stated that due to the above cited reasons, there was a delay of 154 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate, which may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.

3.1 The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the delay being condoned.

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 7 of 9

3.2 In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.

4.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted before me that the Addl/JCIT(A)- 7, Mumbai has passed an order ex-parte qua the assessee, arbitrarily upholding the order passed by the AO. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the AO had not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and had passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with 143(3) of the Act, without bringing on record any material in support of the additions which were made on the basis of presumption and surmises only. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of the transactions entered into by the assessee, before the AO.

5.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

6.0 I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case as well as

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 8 of 9

the undertaking given by the Ld. A.R. to furnish all the relevant details/documents before the AO, 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 AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case along with the necessary evidences in support of the transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO 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.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2026.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:30/04/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR

ITA No.763/LKW/2025 Page 9 of 9

By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO