DINESH KUMAR MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 833/LKW/2026Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 September 2026AY 2019-2010 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee is an Advocate, it cannot be presumed he is well-versed with computers and able to respond to email notices. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not stand to gain from the delay in filing appeals. The facts regarding the acquisition and allotment of land, which were agitated before the CIT(A) but not examined, were crucial. If the assessee could prove he received the land as compensation for land purchased in 1997, the subsequent allotment would not constitute a fresh purchase attracting section 56(2)(x), as the original transaction predated the provision. Therefore, there is a need to verify these facts. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for consideration of these aspects. The assessee is to furnish all relevant details, and the AO is to pass a fresh order. Consequently, ITA No. 833/LKW/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal held that it is premature to conclude under-reporting of income without ascertaining full facts. The penalty levied under section 270A is not sustainable and is deleted, with liberty to the AO to re-initiate it if, during the restored assessment, he concludes that income was under-reported. Accordingly, ITA No. 832/LKW/2026 is allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, is in appeal before the ITAT against orders of the CIT(A), NFAC for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeals challenge an assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and a penalty order under section 270A. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148A after receiving information that the assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1,05,000/- when its market value was Rs. 43,91,264/-. The AO noted the assessee had not filed a return for AY 2019-20 and did not respond to notices. An addition of Rs. 42,86,264/- was made under section 56(2)(x). The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 246 days, with the CIT(A) not condoning the delay. A penalty of Rs. 5,71,156/- was levied for under-reporting income. The assessee's appeal against the penalty was also dismissed due to a delay of 3 months and 27 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals in limine without condoning the delay and considering the reasons for the delay, particularly concerning the assessee's unfamiliarity with the faceless scheme and notices issued on email IDs (Section 249(3) and principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the authorities below erred in making an addition of Rs. 42,86,264/- under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, representing the difference between the circle rate and sale consideration, when the plot was allotted in 1997, prior to the introduction of the said provisions, and the consideration was paid in 1997 and 2002 (Section 56(2)(x)). 3. Whether the penalty of Rs. 5,71,156/- levied under section 270A for under-reporting of income is sustainable when the addition was made on a deemed basis under section 56(2)(x) and the underlying facts have not been properly examined (Section 270A). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing appeals was due to circumstances beyond his control, including unfamiliarity with the faceless scheme and email communications. He contended that section 56(2)(x) is not applicable as the land was allotted in 1997 and consideration paid in 1997 and 2002, before the provision was enacted. The penalty is unjustified as there was no obligation to disclose income under section 56(2)(x) in this context. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to furnish any reply or supporting documents before the AO, forcing the AO to pass an order based on the circle rate discrepancy. The complex factual claims were not verified by lower authorities. The revenue requested the matter be restored to the AO for proper fact-finding and verification of the society's allotment logs and payment modes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 56(2)(x),Section 270A,Section 274,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Hearing: 10.09.2026Pronounced: 24.09.2026

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 12.05.2026 and 29.05.2026 against the orders passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and under section 270A respectively that for the assessment year 2019-20 dated 7.12.2024 and 18.06.2025 respectively. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “ITA No.832/LKW/2026 “1. That the CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay and without considering the reasons for delay.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the notices were issued on the email id and the assessee is not acquainted with the faceless scheme.

3.

Th

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 →