RAIS AHMAD,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and produce necessary evidence. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 based on information about a credit of Rs. 19,20,000 in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed this amount was from property sale proceeds disclosed in the return, but the AO added it as income from undisclosed sources under section 69A for lack of evidence. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 19,20,000 as income from undisclosed sources was justified without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to present evidence, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the NFAC was proper.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 139,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 144,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.01.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax Department was in possession of information that there was total credit of Rs.19,20,000/- in assessee’s Bank Account No.20209855010 maintained with Allahabad Bank, Kareli Branch, Allhabad during the year under consideration. As per the Department, the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’). The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act after issuing Notice under section 148 of the Act to the ITA No.37/ALLD/2024 assessee. Thereafter, the AO issu
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.
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
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026