RAM NIWAS GUPTA,FIROZABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(3), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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. 553/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Niwas Gupta, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Sirsaganj, Firozabad (UP)- Ward 2(2)(3), Firozabad, 205151. Aayakar Bhawan, Dabarai, Firozabad-283203 PAN : ALDPG3241K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2026 ORDER PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed in appeal No. CIT(Appeal)2, Agra/10994/2019-20 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. 2017-18, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal.

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ex parte without the appellant having any knowledge of the appellate proceedings or the order passed therein. 5. That when the appellant enquired from his counsel regarding the non-prosecution of the appeal, the counsel informed him that neither any notice of hearing nor the appellate order had ever been served on the e-mail address furnished by the appellant in Form No. 35 (Appeal Memo). It was only on account of such non-service of notices that the appellant could not participate in the appellate proceedings. It is submitted that, for the impugned assessment year, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC issued four notices of hearing under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on a different e-mail address, which was never mentioned by the appellant in Form No. 35. The details of such notices are as under. S.no. Date of Issue Date of Notice & Din No. Email id on which notice hearing issued 1 01.03.2021 08.03.2021 ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2 migr@migr.com 020-211031098952(1) 2 30.08.2023 14.09.2023 ITBA/NFAC/APL_1/2023- ramniwas@advkvitaxc.in 24/1055581267 (1) 3 12.12.2023 27.12.2023 ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_124/105 ramniwas@advkvitaxc.in 8674357(1) 4 25.09.2024 03.10.2024 ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2 ramniwas@advkvitaxc.in 024-25/1069085217(1) 6. That from the above table it is crystal clear that no notice of hearing or order was sent on the correct email id which was referred in the form 35 appeal memo. 7. That vide impugned assessment order U/s 144/147 dated 06/11/2019 Ld. AO had raised high pitched demand of Rs. 33,87,936/- on an impugned additions of Rs. 40,65,567/-. In order to get relief from this alleged demand, the appellant had challenged the order of the AO before Ld. CIT(A). Thus under this circumstances it could not be expected from any prudent person of sound mind that he or she shall avoid the proceeding. As because no notice was served on the appellant, the appellant was completely unacquainted which prevented him from making compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. That non submission by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) also resulted in dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal without even adjudicating any of the 3 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

grounds of appeal. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without even considering the merits & legal aspects which goes to the root of the matter and are prima facie evident from the statements of Facts & Grounds of appeal as raised through appeal Form 35. 9. That as stated above in the month of June, 2026, the appellant received appeal hearing notice from ITAT, Agra Bench Agra which was filed by the revenue against the CIT(A) order passed in the assessment year 2018-19 in the appellant own case. Upon receipt of the said notice, he immediately contacted his counsel, whereupon he came to know for very first time that his appeal had already been dismissed ex parte by the Learned CIT(A), NFAC for the impugned assessment year. Immediately thereafter, he took prompt steps to file the present appeal before this Hon'ble Bench. Consequently, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 358 days. 10. That there was no malafide intention of the appellant to defer or delay the appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). There was genuine hardship with the appellant which naturally prevented him from filing the appeal against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. PRAYER It is very humbly prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the delay of 358 days in furnishing the appeal before this Hon'ble bench may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be admitted and may be treated to have been filed within prescribed time of 60 days.”

4 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

5 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

4.1 Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extract of the order of learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under : “6. Decision I have gone through the facts of the case. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the name of the appellant comes into picture because he was a signatory in respect of bank account No.27510200000244 with Bank of Baroda, Sirsaganj, Firozabad, whereas the entire transaction reflected in the said bank account pertains to Smt. Arti Gupta, Prop. M/s Satguru Agency. It was also contended that Smt. Gupta is assessed to tax vide PAN: ANGPA1523K as Prop. of Satguru Agency and has filed her return of income for the relevant AY 2018-19 with audited accounts on 30.10.2017. The appellant, therefore, prayed for deletion of the entire addition made under section 69A of Rs.22,47,000/- and towards 8% profit estimation u/s44AD of Rs. 18,18,567/-. Although the grounds of appeal proposing deletion of the additions made mention certain facts, these facts are not supported by adequate evidence. The appellant did not cooperate at the assessment stage. Neither did he comply to notice u/s250 calling for submission in respect of each ground raised in appeal. The appellant has not filed any return of income himself. He contends to be a mere signatory in respect of a bank account maintained in his name, stating that all deposits pertain to Smt. Arti Gupta, Prop. of M/s Satguru Agency. Cash Book, Tax Audit Report, copy of return of income in respect of Arti Gupta was never furnished to substantiate the claim of the appellant. Even the Prop. of M/s Satguru Agency has been mentioned as Arti Gupta and Anita Gupta simultaneously. In view of the facts that emerges in this case, I am not convinced that the action of the AO was unjustified. This is because no effort has been made by the appellant to present the case before the AO and the appellate authority. In the perspective I dismiss the appeal of the appellant and confirm the additions made by the A.O. In the result, appeal is dismissed.” (emphasis supplied by us)

6 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

appellant's unexplained income merely on the basis that the appellant was a signatory to the said bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the bank account stood in the name of M/s Satguru Agency, a sole proprietorship concern of the appellant's wife, Mrs. Arti Gupta, which was duly registered under the VAT Act and subsequently under the GST Act. The authorities below ignored the cogent documentary evidence establishing that the bank account belonged to the said proprietorship concern and not to the appellant. Therefore, the addition made on account of the entire cash deposits in the said bank account is contrary to the facts, evidence on record, and settled principles of law, and is liable to be deleted. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the impugned bank account as belonging to the appellant, whereas the said bank account was owned by the appellant's wife, Mrs. Arti Gupta, and was duly disclosed by her in the Balance Sheets and Income-tax Returns filed by her. In view of these undisputed facts, the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the cash deposits made in the said bank account as the unexplained income of the appellant is wholly contrary to the facts and evidence on record, arbitrary, unjustified, and liable to be deleted. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act without properly appreciating and considering the material evidence placed on record by the Appellant and directly procured from the bank. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that the questioned bank account belonged to the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, in the appellant's own case for Assessment Year 2018-19, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, on identical facts and evidence, categorically held that the said bank account did not belong to the appellant but belonged to his wife, Mrs. Arti Gupta, and accordingly deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer. Having accepted the ownership of the said bank account in the hands of the appellant's wife on the same set of facts, the Ld. CIT(A) could not have taken a contrary view in the impugned assessment year without bringing any fresh material or distinguishing facts on record. The impugned assessment order as well as the appellate order are, therefore, contrary to the settled principle of consistency and are liable to be quashed, and the additions made therein deserve to be deleted.

8 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

Rs. 1,89,87,500/- in the aforesaid bank account was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which was affirmed by this Bench in ITA No. 362/Agr/2026 vide order dated 09.07.2026. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned addition of Rs. 1,89,87,500/- in the case of the assessee in respect of the cash deposits in the impugned bank account number 27510200000244 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Sirsaganj for A.Y. 2018-19 was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the impugned bank A/c did not belong to the assessee and the assessee was assessed with a different PAN being ALDPG3241K and the bank account under reference was solely owned by Smt. Arti Gupta having PAN ANGPA1523K and the appellant was only an authorised signatory. In this regard, the relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal is reproduced as under: “6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noted above the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the ground that appellant is assessed to tax with a different PAN i.e. ALDPG3241K and the bank account under reference was solely owned by Smt. Arti Gupta having PAN ANGPA1523K and the appellant was only an authorised signatory. The Ld. CIT (A) further held that the appellant is not under any obligation to be taxed in respect of the deposits made in the account of his wife despite the fact that Smt. Arti Gupta did not file her return of income for the AY 2018-19. The relevant extracts of the said order are reproduced as under: “7. Decision I have gone through the facts of the case. I find that the bank A/c no. 27510200000244 with Bank of Baroda stood in the name of Smt Arti Gupta as the sole proprietor of the M/s Sadguru Agency. The name of the appellant features as an authorized signatory and not as a joint account holder. The KYC document furnished before the AO is as follows:

10 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

Since the appellant is assessed to tax with a different PAN i.e. ALDPG3241K, the bank account under reference was solely owned by Smt. Arti Gupta having PAN ANGPA1523K and the appellant was only an authorised signatory, in my considered view, the appellant is not under any obligation to be taxed in respect of the deposits made in the account of his wife despite the fact that Smt. Arti Gupta did not file a return of income for the AY 2018-19. The proper course of action was to initiate proceedings against Smt. Arti Gupta to consider the amount of Rs. 1,89,87,500/- for taxation. In the circumstances, the addition u/s 69A cannot sustain in the hands of the appellant. The AO is directed to delete the same. The ground raised by the appellant, is allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 11 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

6.1. At the time of hearing before us, no controverting evidence has been brought on record by the revenue to rebut the above findings of the Ld. CIT (A). Further, we are of the considered view that in the given facts of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the said addition on the ground that the impugned bank A/c did not belong to the assessee and the assessee was assessed with a different PAN being ALDPG3241K even though Smt. Arti Gupta who solely owned the bank account under reference did not file her return of income for the AY 2018-19. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.”

8.1 However, in the present appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the appellant did not cooperate at the assessment stage. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee neither complied to notice u/s250 calling for submission in respect of each ground raised in appeal. The ld. CIT(A) noted that though the appellant contended to be a mere signatory in respect of a bank account maintained stating that all deposits pertained to Smt. Arti Gupta, Prop. of M/s Satguru Agency but observed that the Cash Book, Tax Audit Report, copy of return of income in respect of Arti Gupta was never furnished to substantiate the claim of the appellant. The above observations the Ld. CIT(A) has been carefully considered by us along with our decision in ITA No. 362/Agr/2026. On careful consideration, we notice that the assessee did not comply before the Ld. CIT(A) as noted above by us, the notices of hearing of the Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee. Therefore, in such a situation, the assessee cannot be given the benefit of our decision in ITA No. 12 | P a g e

553/Agr/2026ITA No.

362/Agr/2026 unless the assessee substantiates its grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) as observed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to give one more opportunity to the assessee, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. The assessee is also directed to be diligent to attend the hearing notices issued by the learned CIT(A). All the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 29/10/2026 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

13 | P a g e