Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file her income tax return. An ex-parte assessment was completed under Section 147, making additions of Rs. 6,90,000/- under Section 69 (unexplained investment in a plot) and Rs. 4,64,000/- under Section 56(2)(x) (income from other sources). The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT.
Held
After condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer with directions to pass a de novo assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made under Sections 69, 69A, and 56(2)(x) were justified given that the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. Also, the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Sections Cited
69, 115BBE, 69A, 56(2)(x), 253(3), 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2019-20 against impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1072149214(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short]. Grounds of appeal are as under:
“01. THAT the AO as well as CIT(A)/NFAC has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and specially the content of the replies filed.
THAT the assessee purchased plot after taking loan from her sister through RTGS in her savings bank account and making the payment through cheque Rs.5,35,000/- and Rs.1,55,000/- from her savings. The AO as well as the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s.69 making the addition of Rs.6,90,000/-and also apply the provisions of section 115BBE, the addition made, be deleted.
THAT the AO as well as has failed to appreciate that Rs.5,10,000/- being old SBN deposited in bank account duly recorded in books of accounts, the said amount is last year balances, which was credited in this year, cannot be treated as undisclosed or unexplained. The AO has wrong applied the provisions of section 69A of the Act and upheld by the CIT(A), the addition made be deleted.
THAT without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred on fact and in law in wrongly computing and addition a sum of Rs.4,64,000/- u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act, as income from other sources, the addition made be deleted.”
(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
(C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. In this case assessment order dated 13/02/2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 144/144B of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.11,54,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.6,90,000/- was made under section 69 and further addition of Rs.4,64,000/- was made under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 14/01/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(C) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials available on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee and the order passed by learned CIT(A) is non speaking order. In response to a query from Bench, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that the issue in dispute may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2025)