PUNEET KUMAR ,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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. 196/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Puneet Kumar, Mohalla Ikram, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Agra-282002 Maniharan Islam Nagar, Rampur, Saharanpur- 247451 PAN : BJKPK3187Q (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 27.02.2026 passed in appeal No CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10134/2020-21 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur (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. 2021-22, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,47,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act vide assessment order dated 31.12.2022. 2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that assessee is a Govt Employee and was residing in Lucknow. He had hired a house care taker, who, one day, was found to be murdered. Assessee lodged an FIR on 26.03.2021 at Lucknow. During the police investigation, it was revealed by

ITA No.196/Agr/2026

the assessee that an amount of Rs. 2,47,00,000/- had been stolen from his almirah which was recovered from four arrested persons. Meantime, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.10.2021, for the A.Y. 2021-22, declaring total income at Rs. 9,58,030/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, seeking assessee to explain the source and nature of Rs. 2,47,00,000/-. The reply filed by assessee did not seem sufficient to the assessing officer, hence, the ld assessing officer had passed the assessment order dated 31.12.2022 u/s. 143(3) of the Act and added Rs. 2,47,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act, in the income of the assessee as unexplained money. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal and sustained the assessment order. 4. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 ex- parte without granting effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and the order so passed is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without considering the adjournment application duly filed by the appellant on 12.02.2026, and before passing of the order on 27.02.2026, and without disposing of the said adjournment request by a speaking order, thereby denying the appellant proper and effective opportunity of being heard and of representing his case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in a mechanical manner by merely reproducing and affirming the findings of the Assessing Officer without independently examining the facts, evidences and submissions placed on 2 | P a g e

ITA No.196/Agr/2026

record, which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requiring a reasoned and speaking order. 4. That the impugned appellate order is vitiated as it does not contain proper adjudication of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and has been passed in violation of statutory duty cast upon the learned CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by stating points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for such decision. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,47,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case, evidences on record and the explanation submitted by the appellant. 6. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) being ex-parte and in violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside and the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 5. Perused the records. None responded for the appellant assessee. Heard ld Sr (DR) for the respondent revenue. 6. It is noticed from the perusal of the impugned order that, ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal on the ground that no credible evidence was furnished to explain the source amounting Rs. 2,47,00,000/- despite the submissions of assessee having been submitted in the office of ld CIT(A), as mentioned in para 4 at page 3 of the impugned order. The said submissions are not found to have been discussed and considered by the ld CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to remit the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A), to decide the matter a fresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after

3 | P a g e

ITA No.196/Agr/2026

considering the evidences filed by the assessee. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 7. 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