AMRENDRA KUMAR,UNNAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4), UNNAO, UNNAO

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW “A” BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.789/Lkw/2026 A.Y. 2017-18 Amrendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer-2(4), Village & Post Kantha Aayakar Bhawan, Makhi Hasanganj, Unnao, vs. House, Civil Lines, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh-209858. Uttar Pradesh-241502. PAN: DBVPK9205C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Sudhakar Shukla, DR Date of hearing: 09.09.2026 Date of pronouncement: 29.10.2026

O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) / NFAC dated 07.01.2026, wherein the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), for the AY 2017-18 dated 30.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “ 1) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC, Delhi passed the First Appellate Order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard in an ex-parte manner, therefore the said order is deserves to be set aside and consequently relief may please be granted to the appellant.

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar 2) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the impugned order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact: i) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the Ld. A.O. failed to supply the reasons recorded and serve notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the appellant during the assessment proceedings, therefore the impugned Assessment Order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. ii) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the vague reasons have been recorded by the A.O. which has no live link with the material on record and is lacking in basic facts, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law and consequently the impugned reassessment order is void ab-initio, unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. iii) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the reasons have been recorded on borrowed satisfaction, without conducting prior independent enquiry, therefore, initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law and consequently the impugned reassessment order is void ab-initio and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. iv) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the Ld. A.O. has recorded reasons on the basis of some information which has not been paraphrased in the reasons recorded, therefore the assumption of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law and consequently the impugned reassessment order is void ab-initio, unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. v) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the Approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was granted by the higher authority is mechanical, therefore, the impugned reassessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. vi) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that in the reasons recorded neither specific DIN has been mentioned nor signature of A.O. is affixed, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law and consequently the impugned reassessment order is void ab-initio, unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. vii) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that neither the reasons recorded nor the Format on which approval is granted has not been provided to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Under these circumstances the assumption of jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law and consequently the impugned reassessment order is void ab-initio, unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. viii) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the Ld. Assessing Officer has made erroneous calculation of income and tax after passing the impugned reassessment order, therefore, the said computation of income and tax is liable to be corrected as per law. ix) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the assessment completed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Ld. A.O. is based on surmises, conjectures, therefore the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and unsustainable in law and consequently the impugned assessment order is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed and addition made therein are liable to be deleted. x) That the impugned assessment order has been passed without following the laid down procedure as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular/Notification/Instruction, therefore the impugned assessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. xi) That the assessment completed and order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. was without lawful Jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the said order passed is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. xii) That the proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been initiated on the basis of erroneous facts, therefore the impugned assessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. xiii) That the Copy of Format on which approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was granted, was not provided to the appellant, which proves that satisfaction as contemplated under section 151 of the Income Tax act, 1961 was absent, therefore the impugned reassessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. xiv) That impugned reassessment order is without jurisdiction and is therefore void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. xv) That the Ld. C.I.T.(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in invoking Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. is unsustainable in law and on facts and deserves to be dropped. xvi) That the Ld. C.I.T(A), NFAC Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining that the Arbitrary Addition of Rs. 1,21,15,100/- made by the Ld. A.O. as unexplained Cash Credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Income of the appellant which is without correctly appreciating and considering the facts, therefore, the addition made by the Ld. A.O. is deserves to be deleted.

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar xvii) That the Arbitrary Addition of Rs. 1,21,15,100/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant is contrary to the principles of natural justice and deserves to be deleted. xviii) That the Arbitrary Addition of Rs. 1,21,15,100/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the income of the appellant is much too high and excessive and deserves to be deleted. xix) That any other relief or reliefs as your honour may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted. Your humble appellant craves leave to add amend or withdraw any ground of appeal, before hearing.”

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar Accordingly, a notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee but the assessee did not file a return of income in response to the same either. Therefore, the learned AO, after issuing further notices under section 142(1), proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act. He added back the sum of Rs. 1,21,15,100/- under section 68 of the Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) it was submitted that the assessee was an individual engaged in the business of dealership of Pepsi and earned nominal commission on sale of Pepsi. During the Assessment year 2017-18 his income was below the taxable limit and hence he had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The cash deposit of Rs. 1,21,15,100/- in his current account represented proceeds of cash sale made on behalf of the Pepsico. Vide his grounds of appeal, the assessee also challenged the assessment order on various technical issues. The learned CIT(A) considered the various grounds filed by the assessee but was not convinced by them. He held that the assessment order clearly brought out that additions have been made after noticing specific discrepancies and unexplained items, particularly with respect to cash deposits and transactions not reconciled with declared income. During assessment proceedings, the assessee had failed to place on record primary evidence such as party wise confirmations, bank reconciliation, source of details of cash deposits or any other documents to establish the nature and source of the amounts in question. During appellate proceedings also the discrepancies pointed out in the assessment order have not been addressed. The assessee has relied upon the ledger extracts, business statements and copies of vouchers, but these documents did not conclusively establish the genuineness of transactions or the 5

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar creditworthiness of the parties involved. The assessment order had specifically recorded that the appellant did not furnish confirmations from parties nor were bank statements reconciled in a manner that they could demonstrate a direct nexus between disclosed income and cash deposits or credit in question. The fact that the books of the assessee may have been audited was not a ground to accept trading results, particularly when the ld. AO had identified discrepancies and called upon the assessee to explain them. The assessee had failed to establish that the impugned transactions were recorded in the normal course of business duly reflected in the returns of income and supported by corresponding inflows and outflows. During the appellate proceeding reply was filed which failed to address the source of the deposits. Since the assessment was based on specific findings and the assessee had not complied with all directions issued during the course of appeal proceedings, nor attended the hearings in a manner that would assist in proper adjudication, there could not be any relief granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) found no merit grounds raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal. 5. Assessee is aggrieved and has accordingly filed this appeal. On the appointed date of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. 6. Shri Sudhakar Shukla, DR assisted the Bench. He pointed that the assessee had not made any compliance or any effort to explain the source of deposit before the ld. AO and also not furnished proper evidences before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the lower authorities had no option but to make and confirm the addition. He prayed that the matter may be dismissed because even here the assessee had demonstrated his non-compliance by failing to appear at the time of hearing.

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar 7. On consideration of the facts, we notice that the assessee had raised several legal issues before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not addressed any of the legal issues in course of his order. We further observed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) does not appear to be aligned with the facts as contained in the assessment order. He has made references of issues which do not emerge out of the assessment order. It appears that his order has been prepared on the basis of some templates and not in response to the actual findings in the assessment order. The core issue of whether the assessee was receiving the deposits in his accounts as receipts of cash sale of Pepsi could have been addressed by an examination of the bank statement of the assessee which would have revealed whether the assessee was making regular payments to M/s Pepsi Co. This basic exercise does not seem to have been done and instead the appeal orders desired confirmations from parties, which were impossible to provide in a case of cash sales. Having regard to the actual facts of the case and the failure of the assessee to make compliance before the lower authorities, we feel it is in the best interest of both parties to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO so that the assessee may explain the deposits in the current account with reference to the sales made by him and justify his declared income, with reference to correspondences made or documents relating to transactions with M/s Pepsi Co. Accordingly we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to produce the necessary documents before the Ld. AO to explain the cash deposits. The Ld. AO may consider the explanations offered and documents so furnished and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. 789/Lkw/2026 Amrendra Kumar Order pronounced on 29.10.2026 in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29/10/2026 SK, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CITDR , ITAT, 4. CIT, 5. The CIT(A) By order SHARWAN Digitally signed by SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.11.02 12:06:21 +05'30' Sr. P.S.