ADESH KUMAR MISHRA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 199/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 May 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and for the AO to consider all relevant facts and submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was determined at Rs. 30,77,486 by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the additions were made without proper application of mind and ignored evidence regarding the source of funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 69A were justified without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the source of funds. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A

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 order dated 30.01.2026 for the AY 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming an addition of Rs. Rs. 30,77,486/under section 69A of the Act as the same is added without any application of mind.

I.T.A. No. 199/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 2

2.

Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition with ignoring the fact that the cash deposited into bank was received from his father who is an agriculturist. 3. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 21,00,000/as and the said amount has been transferred through RTGS from his wife and does not belong to the assessee. The bank account in which the above amount was received during the year under consideration was the sale consideration of property sold in the name of wife (Ritu Mishra). The bank account was jointly maintained with his wife. 4. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of assessment as the Ld. AO determining the Total Income of the assessee at Rs. 30,77,486 as against the correct income of Rs.1,77,490 as declared in the ROI. The addition under 69A of the Act was made without considering documents, Information and submissions made before the Ld. A.O. assessee had submitted copy of Bank statements and the assessee also bring the fact to the kind consideration before the Ld. A.O. that the amount of Rs. 21,00,000/ was belongs to the wife (Ritu Mishra) of the assessee. 5. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 29,00,000/u/s 69A of the Act without lawfully appreciating the true and correct facts as the money deposited in the bank account was not belongs to the assessee. The cash deposited of Rs. 8,00,000/-was agriculture receipts of his father being a senior citizen and he was unable to deposited the amount in his bank account so he handed over to his son deposited the amount in his account. 6. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity.

(B) In this case, assessment order dated 09.01.2025 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs. 30,77,486/. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 30.01.2026. The present

I.T.A. No. 199/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 3

appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 30.01.2026.

(C) At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the impugned appellate order and the assessment order were passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He also drew attention of the Bench to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order of Learned CIT(A), and contended that the relevant facts were not taken due cognizance of by the Learned CIT(A). 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. In view of the foregoing, after hearing both sides and after due consideration of 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 pas denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

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

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 07/05/2026 SK, Sr.PS

I.T.A. No. 199/Lkw/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 4

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 →