SUNIL KUMAR YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (4), BALLIAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/VNS/2024Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 April 2026AY 2015-20169 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for another opportunity to present evidence, restored the appeals to the AO. The assessee was directed to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the purchase and sale of immovable property, did not file returns for multiple assessment years. The AO reopened cases based on information about property transactions and added purchase amounts as unexplained investments and sale proceeds as undisclosed capital gains. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investments and undisclosed capital gains from property transactions were justified without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to produce supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 148A,Section 69,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Yadav v. The ITO Agarsanda, Garwar Road Ward 2 Ballia (U.P) Ballia TAN/PAN:AGTPY5357K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sabyasachi Chakarborty, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the respective orders, all dated 08.10.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18.

2.0 Since the facts and the issues involved in the above captioned appeals are almost identical, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.

3.0 First, we will deal with the issues involved in the case of the assessee in ITA No.210/VNS/2024 for assessment year 2014- 15. The brief facts are that the assessee was engaged in

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 2 of 9

purchase and sale of immovable property. The assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had purchased and sold immovable property for Rs.47,40,000/- and Rs.53,30,000/- respectively but had not offered any income from the investment made in the immovable property nor had declared any Long Term/Short Term Capital Gains from such transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO), therefore, reopened the case of the assessee under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, the assessee filed online replies dated 21.02.2023 and 10.01.2023, submitting therewith copy of ITR filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act showing Nil income and profit and loss account. In the said profit and loss account, the assessee had shown sale and purchase of property at Rs.53,30,000/- and Rs.47,40,000/- respectively. During the course of proceedings under section 148A of the Act, in response to notice under section 148A(b) of the Act, the submission of the assessee before the AO was that "that I have facilitated the sale of land of few of known friends, who were interested to build their home for living and for this purpose I searched the land from their money and executed the

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 3 of 9

sales of same, hence no question of any type of sale of land or investment in the property arise." The AO observed that in view of above contradictions in the version of the assessee as well as in absence of any documentary evidence, the justification given by the assessee in respect of above transactions was not to be held reliable and, accordingly, the investment made in purchase of immovable property at Rs.47,40,000/- was added to the income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. Similarly, the value of property sold at Rs.55,30,000/- was also treated as undisclosed Long Term Capital Gains and added same also to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,02,70,000/-.

3.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately.

3.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.

3.3 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 4 of 9

1.

That, the addition of Rs.1,02,70,000/-confirmed by the CIT(Appeal) is erroneous and bad both in law and in fact and need to be reversed and necessary relief should be given. 2. That, the AO had just confirmed the undocumented information of ADI and added both the purchases and sales in the income and forget that the appellant had disclosed the fact of purchases of land and subsequent sales, hence the same amount considered twice, so the assessment done should be deleted and the return filed by the appellant should be accepted. 3. That, appellant had disclosed the net Income on the basis of purchases and sales of Land, but the AO had taken it for the capital gain, assuming the property is of residential one, whereas the provision of LTCG is not applicable, being appellant involved in the trading of pieces of land to different customers, also raw plots were sold which were not of residential nature. 4. That, any further ground of appeal may be added at the time of hearing.

4.0 On identical set of facts, as narrated above in assessment year 2014-15, in assessment years 2015-16, 2016- 17 and 2017-18 also, the AO made the addition on account of investment made in purchase of immovable property and the value of property sold was treated as undisclosed Long Term Capital Gains and added same also to the total income of the assessee, as per details given below:

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 5 of 9

Assessment Addition on Addition on Total Total year account of account of returned assessed investment undisclosed income income (Rs.) made in Long Term (Rs.) purchase of Capital Gains immovable (Rs.) property (Rs.) 2015-16 28,00,000/- 32,46,000/- 2,07,270/- 62,53,270/- 2016-17 -- 21,00,000/- 2,15,440/- 23,15,440/- 2017-18 -- 25,00,000/- 2,34,040/- 27,34,040/-

5.0 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeals for assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeals of the assessee and confirmed the orders of the AO for all the assessment years.

6.0 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.211/VNS/2024, A.Y. 2015-16:

1.

That, the addition of Rs.60,46,000/-confirmed by the CIT(Appeal) is erroneous and bad both in law and in fact and need to be reversed and necessary relief should be given. 2. That, the AO had just confirmed the undocumented information of ADI and added both the purchases and sales in the income and forget that the appellant had disclosed the fact of purchases of land and subsequent sales, hence the same amount considered twice, so the assessment done

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 6 of 9

should be deleted and the return filed by the appellant should be accepted. 3. That, appellant had disclosed the net Income on the basis of purchases and sales of Land, but the AO had taken it for the capital gain, assuming the property is of residential one, whereas the provision of LTCG is not applicable, being appellant involved in the trading of pieces of land to different customers, also raw plots were sold which were not of residential nature, the addition u/s 69 is unjustified because appellant had disclosed all the facts of sales and purchases, prepared the books of account. 4. That, any further ground of appeal may be added at the time of hearing. GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.212/VNS/2024, A.Y. 2016-17:

1.

That, the addition of Rs.21,00,000/-confirmed by the CIT(Appeal) is erroneous and bad both in law and in fact and need to be reversed and necessary relief should be given. 2. That, the AO had just confirmed the undocumented information of ADI and added both the purchases and sales in the income and forget that the appellant had disclosed the fact of purchases of land and subsequent sales, hence the same amount considered twice, so the assessment done should be deleted and the return filed by the appellant should be accepted. 3. That, appellant had disclosed the net Income on the basis of purchases and sales of Land, but the AO had taken it for the capital gain, assuming the property is of residential one, whereas the provision of LTCG is not applicable, being

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 7 of 9

appellant involved in the trading of pieces of land to different customers, also raw plots were sold which were not of residential nature, the addition u/s 69 is unjustified because appellant had disclosed all the facts of sales and purchases, prepared the books of account. 4. That, any further ground of appeal may be added at the time of hearing. GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.213/VNS/2024, A.Y. 2017-18:

1.

That, the addition of Rs.25,00,000/-confirmed by the CIT(Appeal) is erroneous and bad both in law and in fact and need to be reversed and necessary relief should be given. 2. That, the AO had just confirmed the undocumented information of ADI and added both the purchases and sales in the income and forget that the appellant had disclosed the fact of purchases of land and subsequent sales, hence the same amount considered twice, so the assessment done should be deleted and the return filed by the appellant should be accepted. 3. That, appellant had disclosed the net Income on the basis of purchases and sales of Land, but the AO had taken it for the capital gain, assuming the property is of residential one, whereas the provision of LTCG is not applicable, being appellant involved in the trading of pieces of land to different customers, also raw plots were sold which were not of residential nature, the addition u/s 69 is unjustified because appellant had disclosed all the facts of sales and purchases, prepared the books of account.

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 8 of 9

4.

That, any further ground of appeal may be added at the time of hearing.

7.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted before us that the NFAC has passed orders arbitrarily upholding the orders passed by the AO. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that very short time was allowed by the AO to make compliance and the impugned assessment orders were passed, without bringing on record any material in support of the additions. The Ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that, in the interest of justice, the appeals may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in support of his claim before the AO.

8.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and submitted that the assessee should not be given another opportunity as he could have very well submitted the documents before the Ld. First Appellate Authority even if he was unable to file before the AO.

9.0 We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of these cases, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more

ITA Nos.210 to 213/VNS/2024 Page 9 of 9

opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we restore these files to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case along with necessary evidences. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO would be at complete liberty to pass the orders in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if they are ex-parte qua the assessee.

10.0 In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED:16/04/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →