LALLU,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

ITA 940/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 May 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding the previous counsel's non-communication and the subsequent change of counsel. Regarding the substantive grounds, the Tribunal noted that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the undertaking given by the assessee's counsel in open court to produce all relevant documents before the AO, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee deserved one more opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the file to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the purchase of immovable property. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an order based on available material, even if ex-parte. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lallu, failed to file a return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Income Tax Department had information regarding the assessee's purchase of immovable property for Rs. 35,60,000 and stamp duty of Rs. 2,49,200. The case was reopened under Section 147, and notices under Section 148 were issued, but the assessee did not respond. Statutory notices were also ignored. The Assessing Officer (AO) obtained the Sale Deed, confirming the property purchase on 12.12.2017. A show cause notice under Section 144 was issued, but again, there was no response. Consequently, the AO treated the investment and stamp duty as unexplained income under Section 69, adding Rs. 38,09,200 to the total income. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under Sections 271F, 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), and 270A. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the NFAC was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard, and thus is a nullity? 2. Whether the NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 38,09,200 on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the assessment order was passed without recording proper reasons and without assumption of proper jurisdiction? 4. Whether the NFAC erred in passing the impugned order, which is illegal, as the AO's order was based on a change of opinion without fresh tangible material brought to the assessee's notice? Assessee's Contentions: - The NFAC order was passed ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity of hearing. - The matter may be restored to the AO, and the assessee will produce all relevant documents. - There was a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to the previous counsel not informing the assessee about the NFAC order, leading to a change of counsel and subsequent filing. Revenue's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned. - The appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 271F,Section 271AAC,Section 272A(1)(d),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.06.2025, passed by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 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 made investment in purchase of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.35,60,000/- and had paid Stamp duty of Rs.2,49,200/-. To examine this transaction, 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. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notice under section ITA No.940/LKW/2025 148 of the Act.

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →