Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2016-17, declaring Rs.1,94,200/-, but the AO added Rs.10 lakhs as undisclosed income after the assessee failed to explain a RTGS deposit. The assessee claimed the amount was a loan from a friend for land purchase, which was later returned to the seller due to a dispute. The AO completed the assessment under section 144/143(3), and the First Appellate Authority dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Consequently, it set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) and restored the file to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a caution to the assessee for full compliance.
Key Issues
Addition of Rs.10 lakhs as undisclosed income without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee; contradiction in the Income Tax Act sections cited by the AO for assessment; non-compliance by the assessee before lower authorities and the need for a fresh opportunity.
Sections Cited
144, 143(3), 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Singh v. The ITO 609, KNI Kasba Sultanpur Sultanpur (U.P) TAN/PAN:BIDPS4718R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 19.12.2024, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A), Jodhpur for Assessment Year 2016-17.
2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 05.06.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.1,94,200/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee was required to explain the sources of and reason for deposit of Rs.10.00 lakhs through RTGS on 12.02.2016. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO, therefore, treated the amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs deposited by the assessee through RTGS as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 144/143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,94,200/-.
2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act, separately.
2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.
2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A), Jodhpur, by raising the following grounds of appeal:
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Ld.AO is bad in law.
That assessee is engaged as a clerk in Kamla Nehru School and is honestly carrying his livelihood in petty salary.
That assessee desired to purchase a land. Due to financial scarcity, he took loan of Rs.1000000/- from his close friend Ramesh Kumar Yadav New Delhi through RTGS.
That Ld.AO himself has written in third line of para-2 that deposit of Rs.1000000/- was through RTGS on 12/02/2016. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in adding the loan taken through RTGS in bank account of assessee.
That Rs.1200000/- was given to Shri Indra Deo, seller of land (Rs.1000000/- was given through cheque dated 15/12/2016 and Rs.200000/-in cash) 7. That due to dispute among the brothers the seller gave back Rs.1200000/-on 28/12/2016 which was deposited in bank account of Bank Of Baroda. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO was not justified in making the addition of loan of Rs.1000000/- taken through RTGS in bank. 9. That the Ld. AO flagrantly violated the principle of natural justice by adding the loan taken by asessee through RTGS for purchase of land. 10. That Ld. AO passed the order U/s 143(3) of IT Act 1961 (As written in top of the order. however, on second page of the order Ld. AO has stated assessed U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 at total income of Rs.1194200/- 11. That contradiction of section 143(3) and 144 is apparent in order. As such this order is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 12. That Ld. AO in body of order passed the order U/s 144 Of IT Act 1961, but at the same time on page one, in description in column of section Ld. AO has written as under: Section/subsection under which assessment is made 143(3) Thus this order is self-contradictory and so this order deserves to be annulled. 13. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh ground of appeal before or on hearing of the appeal.
3.0 None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application moved in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that the assessee is a habitual non-compliant before the lower authorities and even before the Tribunal and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee be dismissed and no further opportunity should be given to the assessee.
5.0 I have heard the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the orders passed by both the authorities are ex-parte qua the assessee and the assessee was non-complaint before the lower authorities. However, looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, I set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A), Jodhpur and restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/11/2025.