SHISHUPAL SINGH CHOUHAN ,RADHOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GUNA, GUNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 570/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 October 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested a video conference hearing, which could not be attended due to technical failure at the assessee's end. The CIT(A) passed the impugned order without the assessee being able to effectively participate. To ensure substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file. The CIT(A) was directed to grant one more opportunity of hearing through video conferencing to the assessee and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. All grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the grounds raised.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shishupal Singh Chouhan, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 1,00,45,000/- from his bank account. The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 5,91,220/-. The AO accepted the returned income but initiated proceedings under Section 270A for under-reporting. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, which challenged the reassessment proceedings, interest under Sections 234A, 234B, fee under Section 234F, and penalty under Section 270A. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not respond to video conferencing notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were valid, given the AO's alleged failure to establish escapement of income, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the challenge to these proceedings despite noting a "legal mistake" in issuing the notice (Section 147/148). 2. Whether mere cash withdrawal from a bank account, without material establishing escapement of income, was sufficient to assume jurisdiction under Section 147/148A. 3. Whether interest under Section 234A was correctly confirmed, considering it applies only to returns under Section 139(1)/142(1) and not to a first-time return under Section 148. 4. Whether interest under Section 234B was correctly confirmed, as advance tax liability presupposes an existing declared liability under Section 139(1), which was absent. 5. Whether fee under Section 234F was correctly confirmed, as it applies only to returns required under Section 139(1) and not to a return filed under Section 148. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming interest and fee when the AO accepted the returned income without additions, and whether the initiation of penalty under Section 270A was premature or without jurisdiction. 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in summarily dismissing grounds as "general in nature" without independent findings, contrary to Section 250(6). 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing the order without granting an effective opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing. Assessee's contentions: The reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and fee under Section 234F are not applicable to a return filed under Section 148. Penalty under Section 270A is premature. The CIT(A) failed to grant an effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) made contradictory findings and summarily dismissed grounds. The assessee relied on the principle that mere cash withdrawal is not sufficient for reassessment and that Sections 234A, 234B, and 234F do not apply to Section 148 returns. The assessee also cited Anjum M.H. Ghaswala vs. CIT [252 ITR 1 (SC)] but argued it was misapplied. Revenue's contentions: The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 270A,Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234F,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 02.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 570/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shishupal Singh Chouhan, Vs. Income-tax Officer, H. No. 6, Gram-Kanjai Dongar, Ward-Guna, Aaykar Bhawan, Radhogarh-Vijaypur (MP)- Guna, Shivpuri (MP)-473001. 473287. PAN : GJBPS2367Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subhash Jain, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.09.2026 ORDER PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.06.2026 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10526836 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), 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. 2018-19, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

ITA No.570/Agr/2026

2.

Brief facts of the case: The AO noted that the assessee had not filed his return of income and a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 30.08.2024. The said notice was issued on the basis of information that the assessee had withdrawn cash of Rs.1,00,45,000/- from his bank account. The AO noted that in response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.5,91,220/- after claiming Chapter-VIA deduction of Rs.7,283/-. The AO accepted the above returned income, but noted that since the assessee had filed the return for the first time in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the assessed income exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, considered it as a case of under reporting as defined u/s. 270A(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO initiated proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act.

2.1 Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), wherein, inter alia, the assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the ground that it was without jurisdiction, bad in law and was liable to be quashed, as the AO failed to establish that there was any income, which had escaped assessment. The assessee also challenged the levy of interest u/s. 234A (Rs.23,700/-), interest u/s. 234B (Rs.28,440/-) and levy of fee u/s. 234F (Rs.10,000/-). Further, the assessee also challenged the 2 | P a g e

ITA No.570/Agr/2026

initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) noted that the notices were issued to the assessee on its registered email ID and the assessee filed written submissions. The learned CIT(A) further noted that hearing through video conferencing (as requested by appellant) was also granted vide notices dated 29.05.2026 and 02.06.2026, scheduling the conference on 08.06.2026 and again on 09.06.2026, where the learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not respond to either of the VC notices. The learned CIT(A), after considering the reply of the assessee, which was not accepted by him, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing Ground No.1 challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, despite recording in Para 5.1 that "there was legal mistake in issuing of notice u/s. 148 by the assessing officer", a finding self-contradictory to the conclusion reached. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that mere cash withdrawal from a bank account, unaccompanied by any material establishing escapement of income, was sufficient to validly assume jurisdiction under Section 147/148A of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest under Section 3 | P a g e

ITA No.570/Agr/2026

234A of Rs.23,700/-, without appreciating that Section 234A applies only to returns under Section 139(1)/142(1), and not to a return filed for the first time under Section 148. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest under Section 234B of Rs.28,440/-, without appreciating that advance tax liability presupposes an existing declared liability under Section 139(1), which did not exist in the present case. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming fee under Section 234F of Rs.10,000/-, without appreciating that Section 234F applies only to returns required under Section 139(1), and not to a return filed under Section 148. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the Assessing Officer had accepted the entire returned income of Rs.5,91,220/- without any addition, and could not simultaneously treat the return as defaulted so as to levy interest and fee under Sections 234A, 234B and 234F. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in mechanically applying Anjum M.H. Ghaswala vs. CIT [252 ITR 1 (SC)] to the facts of the present case, without examining the specific applicability of Sections 234A/234B to a return filed for the first time under Section 148. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing Ground No.5 on initiation of penalty under Section 270A as "premature", without appreciating that such initiation, where the returned income is accepted without any addition, is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in summarily dismissing Grounds No.6 to 9 as "general in nature" without recording independent findings or reasons, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order without granting effective opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing, despite the same being specifically requested by the Appellant.

4 | P a g e

ITA No.570/Agr/2026

11.

That the appropriate order for granting justice and relief be passed. 12. Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required.”

4.

At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had sought hearing through video conferencing which was not granted by the ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, the learned AR filed a brief synopsis of the case and submitted that the assessee could not appear during the video conferencing due to technical failure at his end. In view of these facts, the learned AR submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, we note that the assessee made a request for video conferencing, and the assessee could not attend the video conferencing scheduled on 08.06.2026 and again on 09.06.2026 due to technical failure at his end. The learned CIT(A) passed the impugned order on

5 | P a g e

ITA No.570/Agr/2026

12.06.2026. Therefore, in order to ensure substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice, we deem it just and appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the learned CIT(A) through video conferencing. We, accordingly, set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing through video conferencing to the assessee and to pass the order afresh in accordance with law. All the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are 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 02/ 09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26/10/2026 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

6 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →