SYED TAZNUR HUSSAIN,DIBRUGARH vs. ITO W 1(2) GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 52, 53 & 56/GTY/2026 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Syed Taznur Hussain……..……………………………….….………...Appellant Extension Centre, Sird Tipling Duliajan, Dibrugarh Assam-786602 [PAN: ABUPH5495B] vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Guwahati…..………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances by: Shri Kishor Jain, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 06, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 21, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These three appeals have been filed by the same assessee against the separate orders of NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”)] dated 17.11.2025, 19.11.2025 & 20.11.2025 pertaining to the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 respectively, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The details of the appeals are as under: - ITA No.52/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2014-15, arising out of the assessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act; ITA No.53/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2016-17, arising out of the assessment order dated 26.03.2022, passed u/s 147 of the Act and ITA No.56/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2018-19, arising out of the assessment order dated 22.03.2023, passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act.

ITA Nos.52, 53 & 56/GTY/2026; AYs: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Syed Taznur Hussain Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve common issues, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. For the purpose of adjudication, we first take up ITA No. 52/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2014–15 as the lead case, and our findings therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeals as well. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee originally filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,51,540/-, comprising income from salary, house property and other sources. However, the return was not verified within the prescribed time and, therefore, it was treated as invalid. Subsequently, information was received from the office of the DDIT (Investigation) that substantial credit transactions aggregating to Rs. 2,43,08,304/- had taken place in various bank accounts belonging to the assessee, his family members and other persons, where the assessee acted as introducer during the relevant financial year. It was observed that, during the year under consideration, while working with the State Institute of Panchayat Raj Development Project, namely “Dikhaya”, undertaken for enhancement of computer education among rural students in association with Oil India Limited, funds received under the said project were allegedly misappropriated through various entities and bank accounts linked with the assessee and his family members. During the enquiry proceedings, analysis of KYC documents relating to various bank accounts revealed that, in many cases, the assessee himself acted as introducer. Certain funds received from contracts awarded under the project were allegedly routed through various entities and ultimately transferred to M/s SYH Project Private Limited, Guwahati, in which family members of the assessee were directors. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and, after obtaining 2

ITA Nos.52, 53 & 56/GTY/2026; AYs: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Syed Taznur Hussain necessary approval u/s 151 of the Act, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee neither filed a return within the stipulated period nor furnished proper explanation during the reassessment proceedings. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) were issued calling for various details. Subsequently, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 9,45,103/-. However, since the return was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, the same was treated as non-est. In the computation of income, the assessee declared salary income of Rs. 3,09,540/-, income from house property of Rs. 42,000/- and income from other sources of Rs. 7,03,563/-, thereby declaring gross total income of Rs. 10,55,103/- and claiming deduction of Rs. 1,10,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer repeatedly sought details regarding various entities and bank transactions. The assessee submitted that he had no direct interest in the firms concerned and that the entities were selected through a tender process. However, no documentary evidence was furnished. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the transactions and also failed to comply with various notices issued during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions u/s 69A of the Act, including addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/-, unexplained fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and other unexplained income of Rs. 1,27,68,975/-. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 3,50,70,520/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee raised various legal as well as factual grounds, including challenge to the reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and validity of treating the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act as non-est. However, according to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) did not properly consider the submissions and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

ITA Nos.52, 53 & 56/GTY/2026; AYs: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Syed Taznur Hussain 4. Being aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that, during the intervening period, proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act were also initiated against the assessee and certain issues arising from the same transactions were adjudicated separately before the competent authority. It was further submitted that, due to non-availability of proper records and lack of effective representation during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not furnish all supporting documents before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). It was argued that substantial documentary evidence is now available and, therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decisions of the authorities below and submitted that, despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to cooperate during the assessment proceedings and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had no option but to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is evident that, during the reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not properly participate before the Assessing Officer. Various notices issued u/s 142(1) and 148 of the Act were either not complied with or only partially complied with. As a result, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment on the basis of available information and investigation material. We further notice that the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 was treated as invalid/non-est on account of delay and non-compliance with statutory requirements. Consequently, substantial additions were made u/s 69A of the Act. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that various subsequent proceedings, including Benami proceedings, were also initiated and certain issues connected with the additions made in the 4

ITA Nos.52, 53 & 56/GTY/2026; AYs: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Syed Taznur Hussain reassessment order have since been examined before other adjudicating forums. However, copies of such proceedings and supporting evidence were not properly placed before us. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the issues involved in the present appeals require fresh examination at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate during the remand proceedings and furnish all supporting documents, bank statements, books of account, details of transactions, explanation regarding alleged Benami transactions and any other evidence required by the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the matter. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law, after duly considering the evidence and submissions furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 52/GTY/26 is allowed for statistical purposes. Since the facts and issues involved in ITA No. 53/GTY/26 for the assessment year 2017-18 and ITA No. 56/GTY/26 for the assessment year 2018-19 are identical and similar to the issues adjudicated by us in ITA No. 52/GTY/26, our findings and directions rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. Accordingly, both the appeals are also restored to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, ITA No. 53/GTY/26 and ITA No. 56/GTY/26 are also allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.52, 53 & 56/GTY/2026; AYs: 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Syed Taznur Hussain 7. In the result, all the appeals bearing ITA Nos.52/GTY/26, 53/GTY/26 and 56/GTY/26 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 21st May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 21.05.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches