RAM CHANDAR JAISAWAL,SIDDHARTHA NAGAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

ITA 861/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 September 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex parte, and the assessee raised specific and material objections regarding the bank accounts considered by the AO, stating they either did not belong to the assessee or were not from the relevant assessment year. The assessee claimed actual deposits pertaining to him were Rs. 1,13,27,600, representing business sale proceeds and realizations, duly recorded in books and supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that the assessment was completed ex parte and that there was a dispute regarding the proper service of statutory notices. Given the assessee's willingness to produce documentary evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by providing one effective opportunity to the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the file of the Assessing Authority for de novo assessment in accordance with law. The grounds raised were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ram Chandar Jaisawal, is an individual engaged in the FMCG business. He did not file an income tax return for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on information regarding cash deposits and withdrawals, treated Rs. 4,53,10,400 as unexplained money under Section 69A and made an addition to the assessee's income. The AO issued notices under Section 142(1), but the assessee did not comply or provide submissions. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment ex parte under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B, determining the total income at Rs. 4,53,10,400. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee is now before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, based on incomplete, incorrect, or extraneous information, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that statutory notices and the assessment order were not properly served on the appellant due to incorrect address/email, rendering proceedings void ab initio under Section 282 and principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,53,10,400 as unexplained money under Section 69A, despite the appellant's submission that actual deposits amounted to Rs. 1,13,27,600, representing explained business sale proceeds and realizations. 4. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the AO relied on deposits from irrelevant accounts, including the appellant's father's account and an account opened post the relevant financial year. 5. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to verify the appellant's books of accounts and bank records, mechanically upholding a high-pitched assessment. 6. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that treating business sale proceeds as unexplained income under Section 69A was unjustified, especially given the lack of proper notice and opportunity for explanation. 7. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC, which is inapplicable. Assessee's Contentions: The assessment was framed ex parte without an effective opportunity. Notices were not properly served due to incorrect address/email. The addition under Section 69A is based on deposits not pertaining to the assessee; actual deposits were Rs. 1,13,27,600, representing business receipts duly recorded in books and supported by documents. The assessee is willing to produce all relevant documents before the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty under Section 271AAC is inapplicable. Revenue's Contentions: The learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 282,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

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 18.09.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Because the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Asse

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →