ARVIND KUMAR,ETAWAH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEP, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 April 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was provided multiple opportunities but failed to make submissions before the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after ensuring observance of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on cash deposits and other bank credits. The AO made significant additions as unexplained money and short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 148A(b), and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA
For Respondent: Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr DR
Hearing: 20.04.2026Pronounced: 24.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 62/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arvind Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ganga Vihar Colony, Ward 2(2)(5) Near ITI Etawah – 206 001 Etawah PAN : AAVPY7501K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA Department by Shri Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr DR Date of hearing 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.04.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2018-19/10326210 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2019-20, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex- parte.

ITA No. 62/Agr/2026

2.

The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, declaring total income of Rs. 5,34,060/-. As per the information available with the department, assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 18,78,200/- and received credits other than cash deposits of Rs. 2,19,17,519/- in the bank account and also entered into the transaction of sale of immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 32,24,000/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, and notice u/s. 148 of the Act, was issued and served upon the assessee. Statutory notices were also issued to assessee to submit the required documents but for no avail. The assessment was completed u/s 147/144B of the Act, vide order dated 22.02.2024 and an addition of Rs. 2,37,95,719/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and addition of Rs. 32,24,000/- as short-term capital gain was made by the assessing officer. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte. 4. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. BECAUSE THE HONBLE CIT APPEAL HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT- (i) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW & ON FACTS. (ii) THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE U/S 148A(b) OF THE ACT, VIOLATING THE WHOLE PROCESS OF REASSESSMENT. (iii) NECESSARY PRIOR APPROVAL WERE NOT ΟΒΤΑΙΝED BEFORE ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 148A(b) IF AT ALL.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 62/Agr/2026

(iv) THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS REPRESENTED BY PLOTS CARVED OUT OF REGULARLY CULTIVATED AGRICULTURE LAND AND WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SECTION 2(14). (v) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.4, THE COST OF ACQUISITION & IMPROVEMENT WAS NOT DEDUCTED FROM SALE CONSIDERATION FOR WORKING OUT CAPITAL GAIN. (vi) THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF BANK A/C 001000863201 WAS UNJUSTIFIED AS THE SAID ACCOUNT DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. (vii) ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER MONEY CREDIT IN THE BANK A/C 021000006401 DID NOT REPRESENT AN INCOME. (viii) ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF BANK FDRS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS UNJUSTIFIED SINCE THE SAID FDRS HAD BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, DURING THE YEAR. (ix) THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FURNISHING EVIDENCE IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.”

5.

We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the appellant assessee and Ld. Sr DR for the respondent revenue. 6. Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset submitted that the reassessment has been completed by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, without complying the requirement of providing opportunity to show cause u/s 148A(b) of the Act and without necessary approval u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT has erred in passing the impugned order in such a scenario. Further submitting that the reassessment cannot stand due to violation of this mandatory legal compliance. 7. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) on eleven occasions but the

3 | P a g e

ITA No. 62/Agr/2026

assessee did not make any submissions. Learned DR has supported the exparte impugned order. 8. At the very outset, we note that assessee did neither make submissions before the assessing officer nor made any submissions during the first appellate stage. Due to indifferent and reluctant attitude of the assessee, both the revenue authorities passed exparte orders. The perusal of impugned order shows that ld. CIT(A) provided as many as eleven opportunities to the assessee but for no avail. In such fact situation, we are not inclined to adjudicate the issues raised before us, however, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A). Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.

4 | P a g e

ITA No. 62/Agr/2026

9.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 18.11.2025 is set aside.

Order pronounced on 24.04.2026.

Sd- Sd- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.04.2026

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →