SHASHI BHALLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(5), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 675/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)49 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the AO for fresh adjudication without adjudicating the assessee's appeal on merits. The assessee had filed written submissions on the merits of the additions, but the CIT(A) did not consider them. The CIT(A)'s reason for setting aside the order, citing a recent amendment to Section 251 of the Act and the pendency of appeals, was found to be an 'easy way out' and not a valid reason to avoid the statutory role prescribed under Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires the order to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reason for the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that huge pendency of appeals is not a valid ground for the CIT(A) to abdicate their responsibility. Therefore, the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a de novo appellate order in accordance with the law, providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consciously discharging their statutory role. All grounds of appeal were treated as disposed of in accordance with these directions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was represented by none at the hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shashi Bhalla, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an order dated 25/10/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The original assessment order dated 20/12/2019 was passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income at Rs. 54,29,667/- against a returned income of Rs. 8,68,760/-. This assessment order included additions of Rs. 39,02,000/- and Rs. 6,58,907/- on account of cash deposited in the bank. The assessment was made ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, citing a recent amendment to Section 251 of the Act effective from October 1, 2024, and the pendency of appeals. The assessee is challenging this order of the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the AO for fresh adjudication without adjudicating the assessee's appeal on merits, contrary to the assessee's submission of written arguments on the additions made. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash deposits were out of past savings lying as cash in hand as shown in the return for AY 2016-17, and cash received during the year from cash income and gifts. The assessee also contended that being an elderly person, she kept cash for safety and medical purposes from earlier years' savings and current year's income, which was deposited during demonetization, and thus, it cannot be treated as income under Section 69A. The assessee also highlighted her declared income from business, salary, and other sources. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Addl. CIT (D.R.), relied on the impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) and left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 15BBE,Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 44AD,Section 251,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 25/10/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069940506(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts and law in setting aside the Assessment Order to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication without appreciating that assessee has submitted written submission on merits regarding addition of Rs.45,60,907/- u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of I.T. Act.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that addition of Rs.39,02,000/- being Cash Deposited in Bank during Demonetization Period u/s 69A of I.T. Act r. w. s. 115BBE of I. t. Act was out of Past Savings Lying as Cash in hand as shown in the Return of A. Y. 2016-17 and Cash received during the year out of Cash Income and Cash Gifts from her Brother's wife.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC fails to appreciate that being an old age, the assessee is keeping Cash for safety and medical purposes out of savings from income of earlier years as shown in the Income Tax Return of earlier year and out of current year income which was deposited in Bank during demonetization period hence same cannot be treated as Income u/s 69A of I.T. Act.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that Assessee is showing Income from Business and Profession Rs.5,06,475/- u/s 44AD of I. T. Act and Income from Salary Rs.2,28,000/-. In addition to this Income from other sources is Rs.2,94,288/-.”

(B) In this case assessment order dated 20/12/2019 was passed u/s 144 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.54,29,667/- as against returned income of Rs.8,68,760/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.39,02,000/- and a further addition of Rs.6,58,907/- were made on account of cash deposited by the assessee in bank. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. The relevant portion of the aforesaid assessment order is reproduced below:

(C) The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order in the office of the learned CIT(A), which was dismissed vide impugned appellate order dated 25/10/2024 of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), vide aforesaid appellate order, set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to make assessment afresh. The relevant portion of the order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

(C.1) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order. At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard, who relied on the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

(D) In ground No. 1 of appeal, the appellant assessee has contended that the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and law in setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication without adjudicating the assessee’s appeal on merits. On perusal of the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), the relevant portion of which has been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order, the contention of the assessee is found to be correct. The assessee had filed written submissions on merits but the learned CIT(A) took no view on the merits of the additions. The learned CIT(A) has set aside the assessment order merely because as per amendment with effect from 01/10/2024, the CIT(A) has been empowered to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment. The reason mentioned by the learned CIT(A) for setting aside the assessment back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment is that there was huge pendency of appeals and disputed tax demands at the CIT’s stage. However, in our opinion, the learned CIT(A) has failed to discharge the statutory role prescribed under section 250(6) of the Act, which is reproduced below for the ease of reference:

Section-250 (6) The order of the 67[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.

Huge pendency of appeals and disputed tax demands, is not a valid reason for the CIT(A) to avoid his aforesaid statutory role. The learned CIT(A) has erred in taking an easy way out for disposal of the appeal without giving a proper reason for setting aside the assessment. Therefore, the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside with the direction to pass de novo appellate order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in conscious discharge of his statutory role as prescribed under section 250 and 251 in particular, and other provisions of law in general. All the grounds of appeal are treated to be disposed of in accordance with the above directions.

(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2025)

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →