ANANT KISHORE KHARE,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

(A)
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated
20/06/2025
(DIN
&
Order
No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-
26/1077283177(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].

(B)
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 24/08/2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,99,650/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 01/10/2019
under section 143(3) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,68,150/- and made addition of Rs.11,68,500/- on account
Appellant by Shri Anant Kishore Khare (Assessee in person) along with Shri Shailendra
Mishra, Advocate (providing pro-bono services to the appellant)
Respondent by Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT, D.R.

I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2025
Assessment Year:2017-18
2

of unexplained money under section 69A of the I. T. Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation refusing to condone delay in filing of appeal. On perusal of records, we find that this was a fit case to condone delay by learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(C)
During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, following papers were filed from the assessee’s side:

I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2025
Assessment Year:2017-18
3

I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2025
Assessment Year:2017-18
4

(C.1) At the time of hearing in ITAT, the assessee attended in person. Shri
Shailendra Mishra, Advocate: provided pro-bono services to the appellant.
The assessee is a salaried employee with annual salary of Rs.1,44,000/-. It was explained from his side, that the joint property was sold in two parts.
The entire joint property was not sold in one go; but part of property was sold earlier, and part of it was sold later. Further, it was submitted from the assessee’s side that the sale consideration was received partly in cash and partly in cheque. The aforesaid amount of Rs.11,68,500/- received by him in cash, was from out of the assessee’s share in the sale consideration received; and that the cash was kept in hand at home, due to medical emergency and for meeting any unforeseen situation in family; which was deposited in bank as and when it became available for deposit in the bank, after retaining expected requirement for the medical situation in family. It was submitted from the assessee’s side that in view of the above; the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) should be deleted. Learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below.

(D)
Both sides were heard. Materials on record were perused. The explanation tendered by the assessee before the ITAT is satisfactory. The order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the aforesaid addition of Rs.11,68,500/-.
(E)
In the result, the appeal is allowed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 09/12/2025) .
Dated:09/12/2025
*Singh

I.T.A. No.520/Lkw/2025
Assessment Year:2017-18
5

Copy of the order forwarded to :