GAURAV TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. DC/ACIT - 1, GORAKHPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.187/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi, vs DC/ACIT-1, 296, Rapti Nagar Phase 4, Gorakhpur Chargawan, Gorakhpur, (U.P.) 273001 PAN: AFFPT3378G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Sanchit Srivastava, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.05.2026 Date of pronouncement: 30.06.2026 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 28.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer of the assessment year 2015-16 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 25.03.2023. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. That the order of Ld. CIT Appeals dated was not in accordance of law & facts and was not justified in making Addition of Rs 11,05,466/- as Unexplained investment u/s 69 out of Rs 64,21,943/-which was made from legal Sources. 2. That the order of Ld. CIT Appeals was not in accordance of law & facts and was not justified in calculating Tax on Income on Gross salary Over Rs. 19,82,362/instead of Net salary (After Deductions) on Rs. 14,29,810/-. 3. That the penalty proceeding under section 271 (1) (c). 271 (1) (b) maybe stayed, till the disposal of this appeal.

ITA No.187/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi 4. That the recovery proceedings of demand created for Rs. 68.31,169/- may be in Abeyance, till the disposal of this appeal.”

ITA No.187/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi channels, that did not explain the source of investment and since the assessee did not submit any response with regard to the same, he held that the investment of Rs. 64,21,943/- was unexplained investment of the assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, both these amounts were added back to the income of the assessee and his income was determined at Rs. 83,40,305/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the return of income of the assessment year could not be filed due to the inadvertent omission of the Chartered Accountant, whose services were solicited for filing the return of income. All relevant papers had been handed over to the Chartered Accountant and assurance had been received that the same would be filed and the assessee only came to know about the failure to file the return when he received a notice under section 148A(b) and the subsequent order under section 148A(d). The situation was therefore, beyond the control of the assessee and because of heated exchange between the assessee and the said Chartered Accountant for the non-filing of the return, subsequently compliance was also not made by the said Chartered Accountant to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer prior to and subsequent to the reopening of the case for assessment. The validity of the proceedings were challenged on the ground that the notice under section 148A(b) had not been uploaded on the portal and the AO in his order under section 148A(d) had not mentioned whether the said notice had been served upon the assessee or not. Even the speed post tracking of the document revealed that the consignment details were not available and therefore, the assessee contended that the notice under section 148A(b) was never served

ITA No.187/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi upon him rendering all subsequent proceedings to be null and void. It was further argued that the AO was obliged to conduct an enquiry before issue of any notice in terms of the provisions of clause (a) of section 148A and had he done so, he would have found that the property in question belonged not only to the assessee but also to his mother Smt. Usha Tripathi and in fact Smt. Usha Tripathi was the first name in the purchase deed. No notice for enquiry had ever been served upon Smt. Usha Tripathi, the co-purchaser. The entire investment had been taxed in the hands of the assessee arbitrarily without considering that the assessee held only half share of the property. By not making this enquiry under clause (a) of section 148A, the ld. AO had violated the provisions rendering the assessments null and void. Regarding the merits of the case, the assessee submitted that the investment in the purchase of the property has been made by taking secured loan from the Housing Development Finance Corporation jointly by Smt. Usha Tripathi and the assessee amounting to Rs. 50,89,609/- and balance had been invested from the past savings of the assessee as well as Smt. Usha Tripathi. As regards the addition made on account of salaried income, it was submitted that tax had already been deducted at source by the employer Tech Mahindra Limited during the year under consideration which was evident from Form 26AS and the AO was obliged to give credit for this tax while working out the demand payable. 4. The ld. CIT(A) considered the arguments of the assessee. With respect to the salary income, he held that the AO was obliged to give credit for tax payment on account of TDS amounting to Rs. 2,61,561/-. With relation to the investment and purchase of immovable property, he noted the submissions of the assessee that a sum of Rs. 50,89,609/- had been invested out of loans taken from HDFC Bank but held that the balance amount of Rs.

ITA No.187/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi 11,05,466/- had to be taxed as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee came to be allowed. 5. The assessee is aggrieved at this order at this order of the ld. CIT(A) and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Sanchit Srivastava, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) held that a sum of Rs. 11,05,466/- could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee as the said investment had been made out of loans taken by the assessee from his mother. He therefore, prayed that the said addition should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, Sh. Sabayasachi Chakraborty, Sr. DR (hereinafter referred to as the ld. DR) placed reliance on the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which in his opinion covered all the aspects of the case and held that in the absence of any evidence, no further relief was called for. 7. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The only issue that remains for consideration before us is whether the sum of Rs. 11,05,466/- should be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. The assessee has submitted that the said investment was made out of loans taken from his mother. However, no documentary evidence has been produced before any of the authorities to establish this fact. Keeping in mind the interest of justice and the fact that the assessment was completed in an ex parte manner, we deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer so that the assessee may submit evidences in support of his arguments that the said investments were made out of loans taken from his mother and thereafter the AO may consider these evidences and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. As the matter stands restored to the file of the ld. AO, the appeal of the assessee is held to be allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.187/VNS/2024 A.Y. 2015-16 Gaurav Tripathi 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 30.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/06/2026 Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order Sr. P.S.