MANOJ BHARDWAJ,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL./JT./DY./ACIT/ITO, NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 38/VNS/2025Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi24 August 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-compliance and the interest of substantial justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the bank transactions. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income. The Income Tax Department had information about cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer added cash deposits to the assessee's income under Section 69A for unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case and explain the source of cash deposits. Whether the addition made under Section 69A was based on proper evidence and not surmises.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC), VARANASI BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.38/VNS/2025 Assessment Year: Manoj Bhardwaj v. Addl/Joint/Dy./Asstt. Prop. M/s Shri Mahabir Commissioner/ITO Aushdhalaya NFAC, Delhi M.P. Building, Golghar Gorakhpur (U.P) TAN/PAN:AGSPB9166C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent by: Shri Deepak Yadav, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.08.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’). The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had made cash deposits amounting to Rs.15,65,000/- during the demonetization period in his Bank Account No.00720200000590 maintained with Bank of Baroda. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act after issuing notice under section

ITA No.38/VNS/2025 Page 2 of 5

148 of the Act to the assessee. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.11,90,500/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from the Bank Account Statements of the assessee enclosed with the return of income that cash to the tune of Rs.18,20,000/- was deposited during the year under consideration and the total credits in the Saving Bank Account during the year under consideration was Rs.72,67,110/- which were not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. The AO issued statutory notices requiring the assessee to furnish the details of source of cash deposits, etc. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation regarding the source of cash deposits made in his Saving Bank Account No.07211930008206 maintained with HDFC Bank, Gorakhpur during the year under consideration, the AO treated the same as unexplained money and added the same to the total 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.30,10,500/-.

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

ITA No.38/VNS/2025 Page 3 of 5

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

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

1.

Because the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer without any basis or legal justification. 2. Because the assessment order and the appeal order as well in question is based on irrelevant material and have been passed without considering the relevant materials and evidences as were available on record and the same is not liable to be sustained. 3. Because the addition of Rs.1820000.00 made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the A.O. and confirmed by the C.I.T. (A) is based on surmises and conjectures and not maintainable in the eyes of law. 4. Because on account of illness of appellant dates of hearing could not be attended. 5. Because the appellant was not allowed proper opportunity of being heard. 6. Because the grounds taken by the A.O. for completing the assessment and by the C.I.T. (A) for confirming assessment order of the A.O. or not sustainable in the eyes of law.

ITA No.38/VNS/2025 Page 4 of 5

7.

In view of all these and other reasons which may be produce during the process of hearing of appeal, the appeal may be allow and justice rendered. 3.0 None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application dated 04.08.2026, seeking adjournment, on behalf of the Counsel of the assessee, was placed before me citing the reason that the Counsel was engaged in post-death formalities of his father, who expired on 29.07.2026, and, therefore, will not be able to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed for hearing. It was prayed that the hearing may be adjourned to any other date. However, looking into facts of the case, I reject the adjournment application and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R., supporting the orders of the authorities below, submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.0 I have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that the assessee was non- compliant before the authorities below. However, looking into these facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide

ITA No.38/VNS/2025 Page 5 of 5

one more opportunity to the Assessee to explain the Bank transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration. I also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer 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.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/08/2026.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:24/08/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →