INDRA PAL GAUTAM,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 198/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 April 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the evidence placed by the assessee required verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after verifying the evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was re-opened based on a cash deposit of Rs. 80,33,000. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income, and the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-representation. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid and whether the additions made under Section 69A were justified, considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
For Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.12.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. Because notice issued u/s 148 dt. 12-4-2023 and consequent reassessment framed u/s 147 dt. 17-3-2023 is contrary to facts, law & circumstances of the case. The notice u/s 148 dt. 12/04/2023 is illegal, consequent assessment framed on the issues other than mentioned in order u/s 148A(d) is also bad in law and therefore the reassessment and additions made to the income of the appellant are liable to be quashed. 2. Because the Ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground challenging the validity of notice u/s 148 on account of time barred notice and also relying on false information of making investment of Rs. 39,00,000 in FDR without investigation. The notice u/s 148 is time barred, based on false facts and therefore consequent reassessment is illegal and liable to be quashed.

ITA No.198/LKW/2026 Page 2 of 4 3. Because the Ld CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal challenging addition of Rs. 80,33,000 made to the income of the appellant under the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. The addition of Rs. 80,33,000/- is based on false facts, illegal and therefore liable to be deleted. 4. Any other ground of appeal raised at the time of hearing of appeal in accordance with the law.” 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessment was re-opened on the basis that the assessee deposited cash aggregating to Rs.80,33,000/-. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) issued various notices but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, thereby, he assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.80,33,000/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Apropos the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee since adequate opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the lower authorities. It was also stated that the assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”, for short) before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, he contended that had the lower authorities considered these evidences no addition would have been made.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”) opposed the submissions and strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR pointed out that there

ITA No.198/LKW/2026 Page 3 of 4 was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). He further contended that no evidence was filed by the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions as made in the form of statement of facts. The statement of facts also talks about certain annexures and further stating that an affidavit by the appellant was enclosed as additional evidence, marked as annexure-10. Therefore, looking to the totality of the facts and the material placed before us, we are of the view that the evidences placed by the assessee requires verification at the end of the Assessing Authority. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the assessment is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The evidences placed before us, is directed to be placed before the Assessing Authority who would verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee and thereafter frame assessment afresh in accordance with law. Grounds raised in this 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/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 29/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)

ITA No.198/LKW/2026 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order // True Copy//

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →