AJAI TRIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEAC, LUCKNOW

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.592/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Trivedi v. The Assessing Officer 538K/223A, Sitapur Road National e-Assessment Centre Triveni Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Lucknow TAN/PAN:AGYPT5072H (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Rohan Mishra, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.06.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.8,00,00,000/- in his Bank account maintained with Corporation Bank and had earned interest income of Rs.30,000/- during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) after issuing notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notice issued under section

ITA No.592/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 6 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO), thereafter, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act. However, there was still no response from the side of the assessee. The AO, therefore, issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the Corporation Bank, Ashok Marg, Lucknow seeking information relating to the cash deposits of Rs.8,00,00,000/- made by the assessee. However, there was no response from the Corporation Bank to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act also. Since there was no response either from the assessee nor from the Corporation Bank, the AO concluded that the amount of Rs.8,00,00,000/- represented assessee’s gross receipts during the year under consideration. The AO, from the returns filed by the assessee in the succeeding years, noticed that the assessee had declared presumptive income under section 44AD of the Act and, accordingly, treating the Rs.8,00,30,000/- as the gross receipts of the assessee for the year under consideration, estimated the income of the assessee @8% on Rs.8,00,30,000/-, which came to Rs.64,02,400/-. The AO further noticed that the assessee had received contract income of Rs.30,000/- from Nagar Nigam during the year under consideration. The AO issued show cause notice requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the provisions of section 144 of the Act may not be invoked. However, again there was no response from the side of the assessee. The AO, therefore, added Rs.30,000/- also to the

ITA No.592/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 income of the assessee and completed the assessment at Rs.64,32,000/-.

2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 91 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

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

ITA No.592/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 6 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act while passing the impugned order. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding of the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the AO had passed the order under section 147 read with sections 144/144B of the Act without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and had made the addition without bringing on record any material in support of the addition which was made on the basis of presumption and surmises only. It was further submitted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. also moved an application dated 12.02.2026 for admission of additional evidence in the form of copy of Bank Statement and Certificate from Bank. The Ld. A.R. submitted that these documents were furnished before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, however, the Ld. First Appellate Authority, without considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason of delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

ITA No.592/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 6 It was submitted that these documents contain some important evidences relating to the case of the assessee and prayed that the same may be admitted under Rule 29 of the I.T.A.T. Rules.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. had objected to the admission of the additional evidences.

5.0 Having gone through the additional evidence filed before us, we are of the view that these evidences go to the very root of the matter and is germane to proper determination/assessment in the case of the Assessee. Accordingly, we admit the same.

6.0 The Ld. A.R. further prayed that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter may be restored back the file of the AO where the aforesaid additional evidence shall be produced to prove the transactions entered into by the Assessee during the year under consideration.

7.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the restoration of appeal to the AO.

8.0 We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the Assessee to present his case. We have already admitted the

ITA No.592/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 6 additional evidence filed by the Assessee in the form of Bank Statement and Certificate from Bank, under Rule 29 of the I.T.A.T. Rules. The Assessee shall produce the same before the AO during the course of set aside proceedings. We also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the Assessee.

9.0 In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:06/05/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO