PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), RANCHI, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 147/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 October 2026AY 2014-1514 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised serious jurisdictional aspects in the grounds of appeal but was absent during the hearing. The Tribunal heard the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) and considered the grounds of appeal and the record. The Sr. DR reiterated that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the assessee's objections and provided ample opportunity. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions and objections, and adhering to the principles of natural justice, directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. The assessee had also filed a rectification application under Section 154, arguing that the jurisdictional ground was not disposed of, which was rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after considering the Sr. DR's submissions and the record, held that it was appropriate to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider all documents, evidence, and submissions to be made by the assessee for a true assessment of income. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessment order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Praveen Kumar Sinha, is in appeal before the ITAT, Ranchi against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that income of approximately Rs. 4,52,300/- had escaped assessment due to undisclosed cash deposits of Rs. 21,59,408/- in the assessee's savings bank account and TDS of Rs. 2,79,637/-. The assessee failed to file a return of income for the relevant period. Despite multiple notices, the assessee initially did not file a valid return. Subsequently, the assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 3,14,230/-, claiming no tax was payable and that the cash deposit was only Rs. 10,79,704/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee's objections to reassessment were disposed of. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was based on incorrect reasons, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,59,408/-, when the AO allegedly failed to dispose of the objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings, contrary to the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts Ltd., as contended by the assessee. 3. Whether the entire assessment framed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal, as argued by the assessee. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the reasons for reopening were incorrect and that the cash deposit was only Rs. 10,79,704/-, not Rs. 21,59,408/-. The assessee also contended that the reopening was based solely on cash deposits, which did not constitute sufficient reason, and that the sanction under Section 151 was mechanical. The assessee relied on various ITAT and High Court judgments, including Shri Shrinivas Gupta, Om Prakash Shukla, Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali, and GKN Driveshafts Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), submitted that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the assessee's objections and provided opportunities to file documents. The Sr. DR argued that the CIT(A) had given the assessee an opportunity to present his case before the AO for verification and inquiry, leading to the setting aside of the assessment order and a direction for a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 153(3),Section 154,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY & SMT. RAJANI GUDURI

For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08/09/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. RAJANI GUDURI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 147/RAN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Praveen Kumar Sinha, ITO Ward-2(1), Ranchi Flat No. 2B-1, Mauza Sadikpur, Vs. B V College, Rukanpura, Ambedkar path, Gulab Vatika Appartment, Patna – 800014, Bihar PAN No. AQCPS9795G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08/09/2026 Date of pronouncement 14 /10/2026

O R D E R PER: BENCH

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 08.11.2024 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-15/1070197614(1) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10118268, for the assessment year 2014- 15.

P a g e 1 | 14

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed return of income for the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 as verified from the ITD/ITBA module of the system of the department. As per the information gathered, the assessee has cash deposit of Rs. 21,59,408/- in his saving bank account, TDS (Salary to employees) – Rs. 2,79,637/- which shows that assessee is having substantial income during the year under consideration, the assessee has failed to file return of income, there is reason to belief that the income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 1,72,700/- + TDS of Rs. 2,79,637/- totaling Rs. 4,52,300/- lacs approximately i.e. 8% of the deposit in bank for Rs. 21,59,408/- + TDS of Rs. 2,79,637/- has escaped assessment. Therefore, the ld. AO has reason to belief that the transaction of Rs. 4,52,300/- remained undisclosed within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2017-18 and therefore, the case was reopened with the approval of competent authority by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act, and notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 duly served on the email id available in the system. Thereafter, on 15.11.2021 a notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee requesting him to furnish the details like copy of return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, statement of computation, profit-loss account and audit report, transaction statement of bank account, copies of cash of book,

P a g e 2 | 14 bank book and cash flow statement and sources of deposit into bank account etc. The brief note regarding nature of business activities of Directors/Partners with PAN etc. and as the case has been selected for scrutiny under section 148 of the Act, a notice under section 148 was issued. Till date, the assessee did not file valid return of income. 3. Vide notice under section 142(1) dated 09.12.2021, the assessee was requested to file ITR for the assessment year 2014-15 and he was given one more opportunity. Again a notice under section 142(1) dated 14.01.2022 was issued requesting the assessee to furnish the information as called for. In Response to the said notices, the assessee on 08.02.2022 furnished the reply stating that copy of return with form 16, 26AS and bank statement were attached and explanation of purchase of property is mentioned that purchase details, copy of bank loan, cash deposit described with source and flow, but, due to unintentional human error, original return was missed to be filed in time and as per the return filed under section 148, there is no tax payable or refund so no concealment or scheme of escapement of any income and the assessee requested to process the assessment as per the attached file and point wise response he declared in the return his total income as Rs. 3,14,230/-. Therefore, again a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 09.02.2022 providing reasons for reopening mentioning that on perusal of the submission of the

P a g e 3 | 14 assessee dated 08.02.2022 it is noticed that none of the documents mentioned by the assessee have been attached and requested him to attach the same within two days to proceed further. On 17.02.2022, the assessee again requested to provide reasons though the same were already provided along with notice under section 142(2) on 09.02.2022 and the same were again provided on 18.02.2022. On 03.03.2022 the assessee has raised objection against reopening of the assessment which was disposed of on 10.03.2022. In that objection, the assessee contended that the assessee is salaried individual and not engaged in any business or activities and he derived income from the above sources and also from interest and income from tuition. The assessee has challenged the reopening and institution of re- assessment proceedings that reopening is done solely on the basis of cash deposit which does not constitute enough reason to initiate re- assessment proceedings, the reasons are incorrect and the cash deposit in the bank account and escapement of assessment is incorrect and sanction under section 151 is mechanical in nature and the above mentioned challenges are purely legal in nature and challenged on the basis of merits as well in the later part of the response and he relied upon some case law before Ld. AO which are as follows:-

P a g e 4 | 14

1.

Shri Shrinivas Gupta, Bareilly Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bareilly I.T.A. No. 482/LKW/2019 ITAT Lucknow 2. Om Prakash Shukla, Faizabad Vs. Income Tax Officer- II, Faizabad ITA No. 763/LKW/2016 ITAT 3. Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali Vs. ITO (2015) 68 SOT 197 (Delhi-Trib) 4. Shri Mahavir Parsad Vs. I.T.Ol (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 924/DEL/2015 5. Ashwani Kumar in ITA No. 129/Asr/2015 (ITAT Asr) 6. Parveen Kumar Jain in ITA No. 1331/Del/2015 (ITAT Del) 7. Sh. Amrik Singh, Kapurthala Vs. Income Tax Officer 1 Kapurthala in ITA No. 630/Asr/2015 8. WP No. 3629 of 2018(Bom) Mohanlal Champalal Jain vs. ITO 159 ITD 797(Asr) 9. Gurpal Singh vs. ITO Braham Prakash Lakra, 10. Delhi vs Ito, Ward-67(1), New Delhi on 19 November, 2019 ITA No. 7650/DEL/2018 11. Bir Bahadur Sijwali vs. ITO Ward 1 Haldwani 12. Madan Mohan Tiwari Vs. ITO Ward 29(3), New Delhi ITAT New Delhi ITA No. 6925/Del/2018 13. Space Chem Engineers Private Limited Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 1791/Del/2019 14. Dheeraj Yadav Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 6701/Del/2019 15. Ankita A Choksey Vs.ITO 19(1)(1) Mumbai in WO No. 3344 of 2018 16. M/s. Mahadev Trading Co. Vs. ITO W-5(4), Baroda ITA No. 2095/Ahd/2009 17. Smt. Usha Agarwal Agra Vs. ITO 4(4) Agra ITA No. 167/Agra/2018

P a g e 5 | 14

18.

Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust Ludhiana VS. ITO Ward II (I) Ludhiana ITA No. 444 to 446/CHD/2014 (ITAT Chandidarh) 19. Allen De Noronha Kanpur Vs. ACIT-1 Kanpur 20. Smt. Meena Gupta ITA No. 7372/Del/2012 (ITAT Delhi) 21. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signatures Hotels P Ltd. 22. DCIT VS. Great Wall Marketing (P) Ltd. ITA No. 660/Kol/2011 23. CIT Vs. Suren International (2013) 357 ITR 24 (Del) 24. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R. B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR (Bom)

4.

The assessee has also submitted that the reason of the AO that the income escaping assessment with regarding to the cash deposits in the savings bank account of Rs. 21,59,408/- is incorrect but the actual cash was only Rs. 10,79,704/- for which the assessee has provided in table form and contended that it clearly shows that what the AO has recorded is incorrect. 5. The AO has also relied upon certain rulings as stated above and further made it clear that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee will be afforded adequate opportunity to explain his case and resultant order will be passed on an objective appraisal of the evidences available and if his contention that the claim of cash deposit is only Rs.10,79,704/- as against Rs. 21,59,408/- as mentioned in the

P a g e 6 | 14 reasons of reopening is, incorrect, the same will be verified during the assessment proceedings and if found to be correct, it will be accepted. 6. The assessee took 308 days to file return of income, thereafter, consumed 30 days by filing objections and only 365 days were available for completion of assessment proceedings. The assessee filed return of income on 08.02.2022 and therefore notice under section 143(2) along with reasons of re-opening issued on 09.02.2022. The assessee waited for 80 days and on 17.02.2022 again requested for reasons of re-opening, which was supplied on 18.02.2022. After receipt of reasons, he again waited for 13 days and raised objection on 03.03.2022 as he was very well aware that after disposal of objection Revenue will be left with less than 30 days for passing assessment order, but, however since time barring for assessment is 31.03.2022, AO Office is left with no option but to proceed and pass within 30 days from the date of disposal of the objection as such, the draft assessment order under section 144 of the Act, sent to assessee on 14.03.2022 requesting to file reply by 18.03.2022 as the assessee failed to furnish reply and details of cash deposit, on 19.03.2022 one more opportunity was granted to the assessee requesting to furnish reply on 21.03.2022 but the assessee has failed to file reply of cash deposit till 23.02.2022 and the assessee has not complied most of the notices issued by the Ld. AO

P a g e 7 | 14 and as a best judgment and the failure on the part of the assessee to comply the reasons and as he did not furnish any copy of the bank statement to prove the facts that the cash deposit was only Rs. 10,79,704/- as against Rs. 21,59,408/- and he failed to file any submission regarding the source of cash deposit for the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15, the AO treated it as unexplained income from undisclosed sources which was not offered for taxation which clearly attracts the provisions of section 69A of the Act, and as the assessee did not respond to the notice under section 142(1) to furnish the details, the AO held that the cash deposit in the bank to the tune of Rs. 21,59,408/- during the financial year 2013-14 relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-15 clearly attracts the provisions of section 69A and liable to tax under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and assessed the income as follows:

Particulars Amount

Returned Income Rs. 3,14,230/-

Add: Addition u/s 69A of IT Act, Rs. 21,59,408/- 1961 (to be taxed u/s 115BBE of IT Act) Assessed Income Rs. 24,73,638/-

P a g e 8 | 14 And initiated proceedings and also penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Against the said assessment order, the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, Ld. CIT(A) while observing settled provisions and amendments to Finance (No.2) Act of 2024 which is applicable to appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals on or after 01.10.2024 where assessment order was passed as best judgment case under section 144 of the Act, which empowers him to set aside the assessment in appropriate mattes and refer the case back to AO for fresh assessment, and also introduction of proviso to 251(1)(a) of the Act, w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which empowers him to set aside and remit the case to AO for fresh assessment and also under section 153(3) of the Act, which inserted the term “section 250” made w.e.f. 01.10.2024 in 3 places including proviso, whereby the AO is given specified time to complete fresh assessment after the assessment order is set aside by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. Accordingly, after considering the material on record i.e. assessment order, Form-35 and statement of facts and grounds of the appeal filed by the assessee and submission made by the appellant, since one of the main grievances raised by the appellant in the grounds of the appeal was that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in furnishing the details before the AO stating that the assessment was

P a g e 9 | 14 under bonafide belief that the attachments were uploaded properly and documentary evidences were filed on and 14.01.2022 and 08.02.2022 but due to some technical glitch, the attachments were not uploaded inspite of the assessee having the documentary evidence in support of the claim and he has been prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in producing the details before the AO and as such he has requested that his documents may be accepted under Rule 46A during the appellate proceedings by submitting the reply on merits and copy of bank statement, Form-35 etc. Considering the said request, the Ld. CIT(A) in the best interest of justice provided another opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the AO for verification of the submissions made by the appellant, for conducting necessary enquiries for the estimation of true and correct income of the appellant and pass fresh assessment order, he set aside the assessment order in accordance with proviso of section 251(1)(a) of the Act, with a direction to the AO to make a fresh assessment in accordance with Rules and timelines prescribed under section 153(3) of the Act and set aside the assessment order. 9. Again the assessee has filed rectification application under section 154 r/w 250 of the Act, on 19.12.2024 against the Ld. CIT(A) order dated 08.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Act, by the NFCA, Delhi, contending that CIT(A) has set aside the assessment back to the file

P a g e 10 | 14 of the AO without adjudicating the legal ground raised by the assessee that since ground of the jurisdictional validity of the re- assessment proceedings which has been challenged by the assessee has not been disposed off by the CIT(A), which goes to the root of the matter, setting aside the assessment proceedings to examine the facts and complete assessment, is against the principles of natural justice and prayed to adjudicate the legal ground at the first instance before setting aside the matter on factual issues. Upon that application, the CIT(A) has passed an order under section 154 r/w 250 of the Act, that submissions filed by the appellant have been considered by the ld CIT(A) while adjudicating the grounds of appeal as he adjudicated the grounds of the appeal at para 5 of the order and set aside the matter to the ld AO for re-examination and there is no error or mistake apparent from the record in the order under section 250 of the Act dated 08.11.2024. Therefore, the rectification application filed under section 154 by the appellant was rejected. 10. As against the order passed under section 250 of the Act and also the order section 154 r/w section 250 of the Act, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assumption of Jurisdiction to initiate the

P a g e 11 | 14 reassessment proceedings have been initiated an incorrect reasons. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs 2159408 when the AO had failed to dispose off the objections to the initiation of Reassessment proceedings, which is totally against the spirit of Landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts Ltd 3. The entire assessment framed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is illegal. 4. The assessee reserves its right to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

11.

The assessee/the appellant has seriously raised jurisdictional aspect in the grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing this appeal there is no representation from the appellant side. 12. We heard the Ld. Sr. DR. He has submitted that the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have carefully considered the objections raised by the assessee and with a view to give ample opportunity to file attachments which he claimed to be bonafide mistake that the said attachments and annexures could not be attached due to technical glitch and he was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in producing the details before AO and requested to provide him another

P a g e 12 | 14 opportunity and accept his documents in Rule 46A, during the appellate proceedings, by submitting the reply on merits, copy of bank statements, Form no. 26AS etc. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions and objection made by assessee/appellant, by giving adherence to the principles of natural justice, to give one more opportunity to represent himself adequately and furnish necessary documents in support of his contention that the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the assessee to present his case before Ld. AO so that he can verify the submissions made by the appellant, conduct necessary enquiry for the estimation of true and correct income of the appellant and pass fresh assessment and give directions for compliance by the appellant before the AO accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) by setting aside the assessment order in accordance with proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, directed the AO to make fresh assessment in accordance with the rules and timelines prescribed under section 153(3) of the Act. The appellant filed rectification application before the CIT(A) that his legal ground of jurisdiction aspect has not been disposed off by the CIT(A) by filing a rectification application under section 154 of the Act, as against the order of CIT(A), he filed this appeal on the grounds as stated (Supra). The appellant has failed to appear before us to present his case.

P a g e 13 | 14

13.

We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and considered the grounds of the appeal filed by the appellant. After hearing the Sr. DR and considering the record we hold that it is appropriate to remand the case to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after considering all the documents, evidences and submissions to be made by the assessee with a direction to the assessee to make his submissions and present documentary evidences before the Ld. AO for true assessment of his income. We accordingly, hold that the assessee may appear before Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Hence, we remand the case back to the file of Ld. AO.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (RAJANI GUDURI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 14/10/2026 *Ranjan

Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi

P a g e 14 | 14

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →