MANOJ KUMAR MAURYA,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 62/VNS/2025Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 August 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on initial SFT information which was later rectified. The assessee provided a sale deed and revised 26AS, which the AO did not have access to. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessee's case under Section 147 based on information about cash deposits of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- in a bank account. The assessee filed a return and later submitted that the actual deposit was Rs. 22,91,192/- against agricultural land sale, and the initial information was incorrect. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO based on potentially erroneous SFT information, without proper verification of the assessee's explanation and supporting documents, is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI “DB”BENCH, VARANASI

Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Shukla, Adv. & Sh. Awadhesh
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI “DB”BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.62/VNS/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Maurya, vs. Income Tax Officer, C/15/318 C Sonia, Maqbool Alam Road, Varanasi, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221001. Uttar Pradesh-221002. PAN: CZMPK1553M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by: Shri O.P. Shukla, Adv. & Sh. Awadhesh Dubey, Adv. Revenue by: Shri Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.08.2026 Date of pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) / NFAC dated 23.05.2025, wherein the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the AY 2019-20 dated 15.02.2024. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of (A) NFAC was not justified to confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer deposit cash in the bank account Rs 10450000.00. Except Rs 2291192.00 no any other cash in the bank has duly been deposited in the bank account by the appellant. And after verification in the 26AS the type of cash deposited in the bank in not reflecting under the SFT004.

ITA No. 62/VNS/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Maurya 2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of (A) NFAC was not justified to confirmed the addition Rs 10450000.00. Though in the Bank account with Bank of Baroda has duly been deposited Rs 2291192.00 against the sale of agricultural land. 3. Because the Ld. Commissioner of (A) NFAC was not justified to confirmed the addition without given any proper opportunity being heard to the appellant and has confirmed the said addition. Though in the statement of Facts has submitted during the file of appeal the facts has duly been mentioned in the Grounds of appeals and statement of facts. 4. Because the appellant craves for a right to raise any additional ground during the course of hearing of the case. 5. Because the order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer is erroneous, bad in law and on facts and is liable to be deleted.”

2.

The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had made cash deposits in one or more account in the Bank of Baroda amounting to Rs. 1,04,50,000/- during the Financial Year (FY) relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, but had not filed his return of income for the said AY. Accordingly, he reopened the case of the assessee under section 147, after taking the necessary approval. The AO records that he issued various notices to the assessee. The assessee responded to the notices under section 148 and filed an ITR declaring a total income of Rs. 2,52,219/-.Thereafter notices under section 142(1) were issued asking the assessee to explain the sources of funds for the cash deposited by him in the bank account. The assessee did not submit any response to either the notice under section 142(1) or subsequent show- cause notice. Therefore, the AO concluded that he had no explanation to offer in this regard and he added back a sum of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the learned CIT(A) a

ITA No. 62/VNS/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Maurya submission was made in the form of statement of facts. It was submitted that the main source of the assessee’s income was agriculture. Since the total income of the assessee was not chargeable to tax, the assessee had not filed his ITR under section 139 for the AY 2019-20. However upon receiving a notice, he had filed the return. It was submitted that during the AY 2019-20, the assessee had sold similar land for his household requirements. It was submitted that in the first place the assessee had not deposited the amount stated to have been deposited in his bank account. Furthermore, since he was not familiar with the income tax portal or the handling of email account, therefore he was not even aware of the said notices and the assessment order issued by the Department on 15.02.2024. It was submitted that no notice had been physically served upon to him. He attached a copy of his bank statement and submitted that he had no connection with the information on the basis of which the notice under section 148 had been issued. He submitted that the AO had made such a huge addition only because the assessee’s PAN had inadvertently being reported on by the said Bank. The learned CIT(A) considered the said submission. He issued further notices for hearing but the assessee did not comply with the same, therefore after considering the materials on record, the learned CIT(A) held that there was no basis to interfere with the order of the AO and he accordingly upheld the addition.

4.

The assessee aggrieved with the dismissal of his appeal and has accordingly come before us. Shri O.P. Shukla, Advocate (AR) submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- because the total transactions that had been made in that account only amounted to Rs. 22,91,191.50, which has been duly credited to the account against the sale of agricultural land. The assessee only had one bank

ITA No. 62/VNS/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Maurya account, which was maintained at Bank of Baroda, Ramkatora Branch, Varanasi and there was no other cash deposited during the period for which notice was issued. During the AY in question, the assessee had sold a piece of land and all the proceeds had been received in the abovementioned bank account and nothing has been received in cash. It was submitted that a reply had been submitted before the learned AO on 08.05.2024, after the service of demand notice, where these facts had been pointed out and the assessee had expressed his concern against the uploading of wrong information by the SFT Filer. The learned AR pointed out that since the notice under section 148 was itself based upon wrong information, the satisfaction of escapement of income was bad in law. The learned AR further pointed out that later on the said SFT had been revised by the SFT filer and a copy of the revised SFT was placed at pages nos. 42 to 43 of his Paper Book, wherein the Form No. 26AS did not reveal any amount of Rs. 1,04,50,000/- and the figure against the cash deposit had been reflected as Rs. 0.00 and in the circumstances, it was prayed that the assessment order being bad in law and based upon wrong facts, may be quashed and the assessee may be granted relief.

5.

On the other hand, Shri Deepak Yadav, Sr. DR pointed out that the assessee had been non-compliant before the AO and also before the learned CIT(A). It was for this reason that they had considered the cash deposit in the said bank account with Bank of Baroda, Ramkatora Branch, to be unexplained. The AO had no reason to assume that there were mistakes in SFT filed by filer unless the assessee was to point this out in the assessment proceedings. Furthermore the learned Sr. DR submitted that even the credit of Rs. 22,91,191/- was required to be examined, to determine whether it gave rise to any tax liability or not. He, therefore, prayed that

ITA No. 62/VNS/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Maurya since the sale-deed and revised 26AS were in the nature of additional evidence, they should be restored back to the file of the AO for considering rather than result in the Tribunal appreciating the evidence for the first time.

6.

We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the parties. It appears that the case of the assessee was reopened due to certain information having been uploaded by the SFT filer, which could not be verified during the course of assessment because of non-compliance by the assessee. It also appears that subsequently, the SFT filer has rectified the said statement and this is reflected in the new Form 26AS that has been furnished by the assessee before us. The assessee has also furnished a sale-deed from which he claims that the credit in his bank account arises. It appears that neither the fact of sale of land nor the credits in the bank account were in the knowledge of the AO and the AO has made the assessment without obtaining a copy of the said bank account and by relying upon the SFT information alone. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of the AO so that the AO may consider this material and thereafter pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.

7.

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

Order pronounced on 31.08.2026 in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31/08/2026 SK, Sr. PS

ITA No. 62/VNS/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Manoj Kumar Maurya

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →