SHRI GIRJA SHANKAR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(5), LUCKNOW
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking. Therefore, to provide a fair opportunity, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against orders related to an addition of Rs. 56,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 22,37,910/-. The assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals summarily.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals, filed beyond the limitation period, should be condoned and whether the ex-parte assessment and summary appellate orders warrant a de novo assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA
by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. For the sake of convenience these two appeals are decided through this consolidated order.
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the I. T. Act. An application was filed by the assessee requesting for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals. An affidavit was also filed by the assessee in support of the request for condonation of delay in filing of these appeals. Giving detailed description of the facts and circumstances, which caused the delay in filing of the appeals, the assessee has submitted that reasons for late filing of the appeals were really beyond his control and requested that the delay in filing these appeals may be condoned. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay and admitting the appeals for hearing. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for decision on merits.
In this case assessment order dated 09/03/2016 u/s 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed ex-parte qua the assessee wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.57,03,110/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.56,50,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had deposited Rs.36,50,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account in cash. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for concealment of income and imposed a penalty of Rs.22,37,910/-. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried both
Page 3 of 4 the issues i.e. addition of Rs.56,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.22,37,910/- in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The assessee’s appeals against the aforesaid addition of Rs.56,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.22,37,910/- were dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate orders both dated 29/08/2028 by observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit of Rs.56,50,000/- and the penalty for concealment was imposed on the strength of the assessment order. The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders both dated 29/08/2028 passed by learned CIT(A).
(C) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee and learned CIT(A) also passed the order in summary manner which in the facts and circumstances of the case is non speaking order. We feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play in the matter, the issues related to addition of Rs.56,50,000/- and penalty of Rs.22,37,910/- are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the orders of learned CIT(A) are set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The levy of the penalty will depend on the outcome of the fresh assessment order which will be passed
Page 4 of 4 by the Assessing Officer after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2025)
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
