RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1016/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 April 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case and without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 12,76,704/- under Section 69A, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits and provided adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the addition under Section 69A was justified based on the facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 20.11.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2023-24. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CTT(Appeals) is bad in law as the Ld. AO determine total income of the assessee at Rs. 17,27,530/-, without appreciating the correct facts of the information, which was in his possession. 2. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) is bad in law as the Ld. AO passed the assessment order without any reasonable finding or any reasoning on the various additions made to the total income of the assessee. 3. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) is bad in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,76,704/- to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act, as Account No. 90788700002267 maintained with PRATHAMA UP GRAMIN BANK, KATRA BAZAR GONDA there is an OD Account. Cash deposited in this account is balance cash which was left at the end of the day was deposited to minimize interest of OD Account. 4. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity.

ITA No.1016/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 4 5. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other and further grounds of appeal with permission.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee is an individual filed return of income on 30.06.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,50,830/- for the A.Y. 2023-24. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). A notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee filed his response before the Assessing Officer but the same was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he proceeded to make addition of Rs.12,76,704/- u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the authorities below have made addition mechanically, he further reiterated the submissions as made before the Ld. CIT(A) to buttress the contention that the assessee had deposited the amount out of the explained sources of income. Further, he contended that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the amounts deposited in the bank account represented the closing cash balance at the end of each day, which was subsequently redeposited into the account to reduce the interest burden on the overdraft facility. Had the AO given an opportunity to the assessee, he would have explained the source of cash deposits. He prayed that in the interest of natural justice an opportunity be granted to the assessee for representing his case effectively.

ITA No.1016/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 4 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adverting to the grounds on merits of the case. It is well settled law that the First Appellate Authority is required to adjudicate on the merit of the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is also well settled that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity to represent his case. Therefore, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed not to seek adjournment without any reasonable cause. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/04/2026.

Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 29/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)

ITA No.1016/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File

// True Copy//

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →