RAM LAKHAN SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI/THE DCIT, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 779/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 April 2026AY 2016-178 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additions were prima facie based on incorrect information and perfunctory exercise by the AO, with no reflection of alleged transactions in bank statements. The assessee was also not given adequate opportunities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was determined at Rs.7,39,80,298/- with additions of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and Rs.4,38,55,100/- under Section 69/69A read with Section 115BBE, and Rs.1,25,198/- from other sources. The assessment was ex parte, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on correct information and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar, FCA

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ram Lakhan Singh Vs. The Assessing Officer, NFAC Gram Devri Rukhara Sukhari The DCIT/ACIT-3 Post Arjunpur, Tehsil-Bakshi Ka Income Tax Office, Lucknow-(UP). Talab, District-Lucknow-226203 (UP). PAN:DKUPS9659Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mahendra Kumar, FCA Respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT (D.R.) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 against impugned appellate order dated 16.09.2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1080773841(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(A.1) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.01.2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.7,39,80,298/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, additions of Rs.3,00,00,000/- and Rs.4,38,55,100/- were made u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). Further, addition of Rs.1,25,198/- was also made on account of income from other

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 2

sources. The aforesaid assessment order was passed ex parte qua the appellant assessee. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: -

“1. Because the Assessment framed u/s 147 rws 144 is contrary to facts, law & circumstances of the case therefore the Assessment and additions made to the income of the appellant are liable to be quashed. 2. Because the notice issued u/s 148 in this case is illegal and contrary to facts, law therefore assessment u/s 147 rws 144 dt. 23.01.2024 based on such notice is liable to be quashed. 3. Because the Ld Cff(A) has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- u/s 69A rws 1 15BBE to the income of the appellant on alleged unexplained money in the hands of the appellant without looking into occupation and source of income, where such money has been denied by the appellant. The addition of Rs. 3,00.00,000/- made u/s 69A is contrary to facts, law & circumstances of the case therefore liable to be deleted. 4. Because the Ld Cff(A) has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 4,38,55,100/- u/s 69 to the income of the appellant on alleged unexplained investment in the hands of the appellant without looking into the occupation and source of income, where such investment has been denied by the appellant. The addition of Rs. 4,38,55,100/- made u/s 69 is contrary to facts, law & circumstances of the case therefore liable to be deleted. 5. Because the Ld. Cfi (A) has also erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,25,198/- alleged to have been earned by the appellant under the head other sources. The addition of Rs. 1,25,198/- is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case therefore liable io be deleted. 6. Any other ground of appeal raised at the time of hearing of appeal in accordance.” (B.) In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, a copy of order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act was filed which is reproduced as under: -

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 3

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 4

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 5

(B.2) We are also cognizant of letter dated 31.12.2024 of DCIT/ACIT (HQ), Lucknow address to PCIT, Lucknow-1, the relevant portion of which reproduced below: -

“2. I am directed to inform you that the above case was sent to the Local Committee for High Pitched Scrutiny Assessment on 05.09.2024 for examination. The committee in its report dated 18.12.2024 (copy Enclosed) has observed inter-alia as follows: - “The high pitched assessment is not attributable to any fault on the part of the faceless Unit. The FAO also referred the case to the Verification Unit (VU) for service of Notice on the assessee by speed Post and the FAO noted the fact of service of the notice sent by VU. Even thereafter when the assessee was unresponsive, the Faceless AO issued notice u/s Ba A to obtain the assesses s Bank account and FD details from the Bark directly also. The FAO did riot receive response to the notice u/s 133(6). Only thereafter the FAO completed the assessment based on material on record. The high pitched assessment is, prima facie, a result of incorrect information on Insight and a perfunctory exercise by the Jurisdictional AO to obtain the relevant bank accounts ”, 3. In view of this observation of the committee and in view of the instruction dated 23.04.2022 issues by CBDT. I am directed to inform you not to take coercive action for collection of demand till finalization of first appeal in this case.

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 6

3.

This issues with the approval of Ld. Pr. CCIT, UP(East), Lucknow.” (B.2.1) At the of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”, for short) for the assessee submitted that neither in order u/s 148A(d) nor in assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 bank account no. and details of cash deposit are mentioned no response was received by the Assessing Officer in response to enquiry made by AO from bank u/s 133(6). The Ld. AR for the assessee further brought to our attention, aforesaid letter dated 31.1.2024 [referred to in foregoing paragraph (B.2) of this order] for our consideration, in which the assessee’s grievance relating to high pitched scrutiny assessment was disposed of by the Local Committee for High Pitched Scrutiny Assessment (“LCHPS”, for short). He particularly drew our attention to the observation of the LCHPS that the assessment was high pitched assessment and was, prima facie, result of incorrect information on Insight Portal and a perfunctory exercise by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR for the assessee contended accordingly that additions made in the assessment order were based on incorrect information. Further, he submitted that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity to present the case during assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the issues in dispute regarding the aforesaid additions of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, Rs.4,38,55,100/- and Rs.1,25,198/- should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the response, the Ld. Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this. (B.2.1) The statements of bank account of the assessee in Corporation Bank [(i) CLSB/01/130028 (II) SB/01/000344 and (iii) KCC/01/120086] are placed on record. On perusal of the same, the alleged transaction of the

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 7 assessee in the bank account, which formed the basis for addition of the aforesaid amounts of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and Rs.4,38,55,100/- are not reflected. Further, Union Bank of India has also issued certificate stating that Mr. Ram Lakhan Singh S/o Jagat Pal Singh having PAN No.DKUPS9659Q was their customer and that he had no deposit or transaction of 3.00 crore and 4.38 crore as per PAN No and account statement of account in FY 2015-16 maintained in this branch. Further, we have also given our careful consideration to observation of LCHPS which observed that it was a high-pitched assessment and was a result of incorrect information and perfunctory exercise by the Assessing Officer. We have also considered the aforesaid order dated 24.03.2023 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and it is found that submissions made on behalf of the assessee, to effect that neither in order u/s 148A(d) nor in assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144, the bank account no. and details of cash deposit was mentioned. Further, inquiry made by AO was not received from bank u/s 133(6) (mentioned at pg no-8 of the assessment order) of the Act was not responded to by the bank. The assessment order is passed ex parte qua the appellant assessee, by invoking section 144 of the Act, without benefit of full representation from the assessee’s side. Moreover, during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer was directed by the Ld. CIT(A) to send remand report. The Assessing Officer issued notice dated 08.08.2025, requiring the assessee to make compliance by 14.08.2025. The Assessing Officer did not give any further opportunity to the assessee and sent his report to the Ld. CIT(A). Based on this report, the Ld. CIT(A) went ahead passed the impugned appellate order. Thus, the assessee did not get adequate opportunity even during the remand proceedings directed by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these facts and circumstances, the submissions made by the Ld. AR for the assessee that the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid additions of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and Rs.4,38,55,100/- and

I.T.A. No.779/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2016-17 8 Rs.1,25,198/- should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order on these issues, in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee, is acceptable. As noted earlier, the Ld. Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this. (C) Ground nos. 3, 4 and 5 are treated as disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions. These grounds are treated as partly allowed. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal were not pressed by the Ld. AR for the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, grounds No. 1 & 2 are dismissed being not pressed by the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 21/04/2026)

Sd/. Sd/. (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 21/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT D.R. ITAT 4.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →