JYOTI PRASAD,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 156/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 May 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the CA's oversight. While noting the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits to ensure principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, had a significant cash deposit in their bank account. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition, which was upheld by the CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The assessee filed a second appeal with a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 18.05.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 156/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jyoti Prasad, 1 Bateshwar, Agra- Vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Aayakar 283104 Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Agra- 282002 PAN : DBVPP6726H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR) Date of hearing 18.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 18.05.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed in appeal No NFAC/2015-16/10370557 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that according to the registry report this appeal was filed on 24.02.2026 against the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 by delay of about 25 days. Assessee has submitted an affidavit

ITA No.156/Agr/2026

stating that his CA, Brjiesh Tiwari, had updated his e-mail and mobile number in assessee’s profile. Assessee’s CA could neither made submissions before ld CIT(A) nor communicated ex-parte impugned order to the assessee. It was only after the due date for filing appeal, assessee’s C.A. intimated him of the same. We treat the cause shown in uncontroverted affidavit as sufficient and condone the delay of about 25 days, caused in filing this appeal. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. According to the brief facts of the case, assessee is a non filer. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, for the reason that there was a credit of Rs. 65,83,949/- including cash deposit of Rs. 62,00,000/- in assessee’s bank account maintained with State Bank of India during the year under consideration. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, to explain the source of said credit. Assessee submitted that he is a farmer and earned income from agricultural operations and also submitted details of bank accounts with statements, cash flow, ITR with computation and confirmation from lenders etc. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the assessee’s explanations and determined the total income of the assessee as Rs. 54,72,450/- vide assessment order dated 19.03.2024 passed u/s. 147/144B of the Act.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.156/Agr/2026

4.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal and sustained the assessment order. 5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That NFC has erred in law and on facts by conforming the action of Assessing Officer(Assessing Officer) who assessed the amount of cash deposit in Bank at Rs. 54,00,000/-, the amount of agriculture income of current and past years. 2. That NFAC has erred in law and on facts by appreciating the action of Assessing Officer who considered only credits in bank account and ignored withdrawal of substantial amounts from Bank. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and delete any ground of appeal before or during hearing of appeal.” 6. Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue. 7. It transpires form the perusal of records that several notices on various dates were issued by the first appellate authority to the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond in compliance thereof. The ld CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order. The non- cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. We, further, direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the ld CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that ld CIT(A) shall ensure the 3 | P a g e

ITA No.156/Agr/2026

observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on - 18.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 20.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →