RANJIT KUMAR TIWARI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), DIBRUGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 25/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 May 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 258 days due to the assessee's severe illness. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,83,76,900/- under Section 69A of the Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was justified, requiring a fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 03.02.2025. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 258 days. The assessee has filed a petition along with an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that due to prolonged severe illness of the assessee he was advised by the doctor to take bed rest for several weeks and after receiving information about the demand from the Income Tax Department he approached his tax consultant and filed the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee requested the Bench to condone the delay. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from ITA No(s). 25/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the order of assessment dated 26.12.20219 passed by the learned ITO, Ward-2(2), Dibrugarh (AO) is bad in law, facts and procedure.

2.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was not justified in not holding that the Id. AO has erred in arbitrarily adding Rs. 1,83,76,900/- to the income of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act.

3.

For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Id. AO has erred in arbitrarily and whimsically assuming that the aggregate amount of cash deposits during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 in bank account number 35617049426 belonging to the assessee was Rs. 1,83,76,900/- and thus, in adding the said amount of Rs. 1,83,76,900/- to the income of the assessee.

4.

For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the Id. AO has miserably failed to appreciate the business of the assessee and after accepting and assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,84,780/- [which includes business income of Rs. 4,94,776/- before deduction under chapter -VIA of Rs. 1,10,000/-], was not justified in again separately adding Rs. 1,83,76,900/- to the income of the assessee, which amount to double taxation which is legally impermissible and bad in law.

5.

For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the assessee was never possessed or found to be owner of Rs. 1,83,76,900/- at any point of time during the financial year under consideration by the Id. AO and therefore, the Id. AO erred in adding entire Rs. 1,83,76,900/-to the income of the assessee, which is without juri iction and beyond the scope of section 69Aofthe Act and bad in law.

6.

For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold the order of assessment was passed by the Id. AO in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and after ignoring the submissions of the assessee and without dealing with or controverting the submissions made by the assessee.

7.

For that the impugned order was passed by the Id. CIT(A) without allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thus, violates the principles of natural justice.

Assessment Year(s) 2017-18

8.

For that the Id. CIT(A) ought to have hold that the tax charged at higher rate of 60% and surcharge thereon @ 25% for the year under consideration is bad in law and unjustified.

9.

For that the appellant craves leave of your honours' to take additional ground or grounds of appeal and/or to modify or resign any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 04.08.2017 with a returned income of ₹3,84,780/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') on the issue of large value cash deposits in bank accounts by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 11.08.2018. The assessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') after duly considering the details submitted by the assessee by passing the impugned order at an assessed income of ₹1,87,61,680/- by making addition of ₹1,83,76,900/- u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 03.02.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-compliance and upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

6.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts of the case and the law, the Bench of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, one more opportunity may ITA No(s). 25/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 be provided to the assessee. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th May, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 08.05.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, B-101, Gali No. 14, Pratap Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi, 110091. 2. ITO, Ward-2(2), Dibrugarh.

3.

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →