SUNHARI LAL YADAV,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), KANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 247/LKW/2025Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, and the subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte. The assessee claimed that notices were never received, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed in violation of natural justice due to non-receipt of notices, and whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting crucial evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

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

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.01.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: -

1. That the L.D CIT Appeal have upheld the assessment order which was passed under section 144 of the Act, on the grounds that multiple opportunities were allowed by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The L.D CIT Appeals failed to consider that the notices though issued by the A.O were never received by the appellant and therefore the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2. That the order of the L.D CIT Appeals, upholding the assessment order passed under section 144 of Act, on the ground that multiple opportunities were allowed by the A.O is BAD IN LAW and liable to be quashed. The Principals of Natural Justice have been violated.

3. The L.D CIT Appeals failed to consider that the notices issued during the assessment proceedings never came to the knowledge of the appellant and therefore no compliance to the notices issued could be made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. The appellant was therefore prevented by a sufficient and reasonable Cause from furnishing the evidences before the L.D A.O.

Page 2 of 4 4. That the addition of Rs 49,12,500.00 pertaining to alleged “cash deposit” have been upheld in the case of the appellant without Considering the fact that the “Bank Account” itself in which the alleged cash is deposited, does not pertain to the appellant.

5.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 49,12,500/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Act, without properly appreciating the appellant’s submission that the Said bank account does not pertain to the appellant and is in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi, with PAN: AFWPD8903Q That the appellant Submitted the “Certificate” from the “State Bank of India” stating that the Bank Account is not in the name of the appellant which has been rejected by the L.D CIT Appeals on the grounds of allowability Of additional evidences.

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the evidences submitted by the appellant, without considering that the evidences submitted were Crucial to prove the ownership of the bank account and were not Previously submitted due to the assessment order being ex-party assessment under section 144 of the Act and owing to the reason that the appellant was un-aware of the ongoing assessment proceedings in its case as the notices were never received by the appellant.

7.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.2,63,100/- on account of agricultural income ignoring the fact that the agricultural income is exempt under the Act.

8.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,17,265/without appreciating that the deductions were legally allowable and duly claimed in the return.

9.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the fact that the original assessment was framed under section 144 of the ACT and the evidence submitted by the appellant were essential for deciding the appeal on merits, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity for complete justice.

10.

That the entire assessment proceedings under section 144 and the appellate order are arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio for lack of proper service of notices and denial of reasonable Opportunity to be heard. 11, That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case (B) assessment order dated 24.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.55,52,555/- (rounded off to Rs.55,52,550/-) as against the returned income of Rs.2,59,690/-. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte qua the assessee. Vide impugned Page 3 of 4 appellate order dated 29.01.2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee.

(B.1) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), both passed their respective orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to aforesaid submissions and contentions of learned Counsel for the assessee. He left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing and after hearing the representatives of both sides, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order, 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 to the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2025

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →