R.N. POULTRIES,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE- 5(4), BARABANKI

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.07.2024, 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 cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,10,79,750/- in his HDFC Bank account 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

ITA No.12/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 6

section 148 of the Act. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income for the year under consideration, declaring a total income of Rs.9,091/-. In response to the statutory notices issued by the AO, the reply of the assessee was that he was engaged in the business of selling Hens and Chickens, and the source of cash deposits of Rs.1,10,79,750/- was from sale proceeds of Hens and Chickens. However, as per the AO, the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of its claim. After going through the Bank Account statement of Account No.50200024959913 maintained with HDFC Bank, the AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received credit amount of Rs.1,24,75,422/- (including cash deposits through bearer cheques). Since the assessee had failed to explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.1,24,75,422/-, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added Rs.1,24,75,422/- to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,24,75,422/-.

2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 272A(1)(d) and 271AAC(1) of the Act, separately.

ITA No.12/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6

2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.

2.3 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.12/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 6

the assessee-firm’s income tax matters, was unaware of the impugned order passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority until December, 2024. It was further submitted that both the partners of the assessee-firm were not tech-savvy and due to limited educational qualification, they were unable to either read or write English language and, therefore, were unable to access the e-mail account or Income Tax Portal on their own. Further, it was submitted that the Counsel, who was engaged during the assessment proceedings, had not responded to the notices issued by the AO and after engagement of a new Counsel, a new e-mail account was created and, thereafter, filed the appeal before the Tribunal with the help of the new Counsel. The prayer of the Ld. A.R. was that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate, which may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.

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

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

6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted before us that the NFAC 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

ITA No.12/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 6

the assessee and had passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with 144B of the Act, without bringing on record any material in support of the addition which was 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. She submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of the cash deposits made in his bank accounts, before the AO.

7.0 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.

8.0 We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case along with the necessary evidences in support of the cash deposits of Rs.1,24,75,422/- in its bank account. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the

ITA No.12/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 6

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.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED:24/04/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO