THE ALICE GREEN,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ ACIT-1, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source and timing of the investment. The claimed investment was inconsistent with the firm's incorporation date and the operation of its bank accounts, leading to the conclusion that it was unexplained investment.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm claimed an investment of Rs. 88,00,000/- in construction during FY 2016-17, allegedly through another firm, Mayfair Lawns. However, the assessee firm was incorporated and allotted a PAN in August/September 2017, and its bank accounts were opened later, making the claimed investment year inconsistent.
What were the issues?
Whether the Rs. 88,00,000/- investment in construction was unexplained and thus taxable under Section 69, and whether the assessment order was validly passed without a show cause notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 144B,Section 133A,Section 44AA,Section 271AAC,Section 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow dated 20.02.2025, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee that was filed against the orders of the AO under section 143(3) for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 8.04.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “BECUASE the assessment order dated 08.04.2021 was passed without issuing show cause notice/draft assessment order, which omission is fatal to the survival of the assessment order, being in complete violation of provisions of clause (xiv) of section 144B of the Act, and consequently, the Id. "CIT(A)" ought to have quashed the assessment order, being illegal, bad in law and without juri iction.
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
