SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR YADAV,HOWRAH, (W.B) vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ALLAHABAD

ITA 25/ALLD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 September 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent for the hearing and had not provided any evidence to support his claims regarding non-service of notices or failure of the department to comply with mandatory conditions. Therefore, all legal grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. However, considering the assessee's claim of running a regular business of coaching, which was not considered by the AO in holding the cash deposits as unexplained, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the AO. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to submit necessary evidence demonstrating that the cash deposits were not unexplained and the addition was not required. The AO was directed to consider these evidences and pass a fresh order. The issue of condoning the delay was implicitly set aside by restoring the matter to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Chandra Shekhar Yadav, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC dated 11.01.2024, which dismissed his appeal against the Assessing Officer's (AO) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The AO had treated cash credits of Rs. 1,19,35,500/- in the assessee's bank account as unexplained under section 69A and made an addition of Rs. 90,43,836/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 174 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, finding no sufficient cause for the delay. The assessee claims to be in the business of commercial coaching and training. The ITAT noted that the assessee was absent for the hearing and had been given multiple opportunities over a year.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assumption of initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 and passing the impugned order without complying with mandatory conditions under sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law? (Assessee's contention: Yes, mandatory conditions were not complied with). 2. Whether the reassessment order passed without service of notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard is illegal and unsustainable? (Assessee's contention: Yes, no notice was served, violating principles of natural justice). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of bringing to tax Rs. 90,43,836/- on account of credits in Central Bank of India without following the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and by recording incorrect facts? (Assessee's contention: Yes, principles of natural justice were violated, and facts were incorrect). 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not reversing the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C? (Assessee's contention: Yes, interest should not have been charged). 5. Whether the delay of 174 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned? (Assessee's contention: Yes, due to non-service of notice and medical reasons. Revenue's contention: No sufficient cause was shown for the delay, citing deliberate inaction and negligence).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 139(1),Section 249(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Hearing: 07.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 1101.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ld. Assessing Officer, passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 9.03.2023. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, assumption of initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 143(3)/147 and that too without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

That

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →