Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 12,40,000/- under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on AIR information about a bank deposit. The assessee failed to comply with various notices issued by the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing non-compliance and lack of substantive arguments.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not considered all the available evidence, including sale deeds, bank statements, and the AO's remand report. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering all documentary evidence and the AO's remand report, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case regarding the source of bank deposits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 144B, 246A, 253(5), 253(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearingNumber:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056950105(1) dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2010-11 and the Page 1 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010.
Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 147 rws 144/144B of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 12,40,000/-.
2.2 That the basis “AIR” the department had information that for the A.Y.2009-10 the assessee had deposited Rs.12,40,000/- in his saving bank account. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.03.2017 was issued to the assessee & that the assessee was called upon to furnish the ITR. However, the assessee remained non-compliant.
Thereafter the department issued to the assessee notices dated 17.04.2017, 03.08.2017 & 09.10.2017 which too were not complied by the assessee & no reply was furnished.
The assessee also failed to avail the opportunities offered by the Ld. AO. Thereafter department issued a show cause notice dated 20.11.2017 for 27.11.2017 however this show
Page 2 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 cause notice too was not replied to by the assessee & the assessee also did not avail the opportunity so offered. In view of these facts & circumstances of the case the Ld. AO computed & assessed total income of the assessee at Rs.12,40,000/-. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated 12.12.2017 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”.
2.3 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the Assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as under:-
Page 3 of 16 Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 Page 4 of 16 Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 Page 5 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 2.3 The Assessee being Aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form No.
36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,40,000/- made by the AO under section 69A of the Act without appreciating the explanation, documentary evidence and AO Remand Report provided that the said amount represents consideration received on account of sale of agricultural land. 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the Appellant for substantiating her claims, especially in light of the personal hardship and the genuine inability to present evidence at the relevant time. 3.That the reopening of assessment under section 148 was bad in law and devoid of fresh tangible material; the additions made are arbitrary, excessive, and lack proper justification. 4.That the Appellant has now gathered the relevant documents and evidence, which could not be furnished earlier due to unforeseen circumstances, and prays for their admission in the interest of justice. 5.That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, OR withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.”
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 07.01.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It
Page 6 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 is in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was next contended that the registry has pointed out the delay of 586 days in filing the instant second appeal. A condonation of delay application is placed on record of this Tribunal which reads as under:-
Page 7 of 16 Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 Page 8 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 With regard to the delay it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is an “Agriculturist” by profession & is not much aware of the income tax laws & the procedure connected with it. The assessee was not aware about the “Impugned Order” of the Ld.
CIT(A). The Ld. DR appearing for & on behalf of the revenue submitted that the revenue has no objection if this Tribunal deems file & proper to condone the delay looking to the profile of the assessee being senior citizen & agriculturist. After considering the submission of both the Ld. AR & Ld. DR we condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. Hence the appeal is admitted & taken up for hearing.
3.2 The Ld. AR for & on behalf of the assessee has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages 1 to 81 & a four pages written submissions in support. Few orders of ITAT are also placed on record. It was contended & submitted that the “Impugned Assessment Order” of the AO is an exparte order.
The assessee is an agriculturist. An amount of Rs.12.40 lakhs was deposited by him in cash in his bank account during the year under consideration. It was submitted that in the earlier
Page 9 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 years before the introduction of the Faceless Regime in the Income Tax Department first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed physically/hard copy. The entire cash deposit of Rs.12.40 lakhs represents sale consideration received from the sale of agricultural land situated at village “Chipher” Dist:- Harda which was sold for Rs.13,75,800/- & the amount came to be deposited on different date from 01.05.2009 to 11.03.2010 in the SB account no.013410100010869 with Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank which was opened on 01.05.2009. Our attention was invited to page 47 of the P.B. filed wherein there are total nine deposits from 01.05.2009 to 11.03.2010 of different amounts aggregating to Rs.12.40 lakhs. Next our attention was invited to Bank statement of the assessee of a/c no.013410100010869 [ agriculture & allied a/c] & correlation was done with page 47 of P.B. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to page 43 of paper book which was a copy of remand report of the Ld. AO submitted to Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that it is recorded by the Ld. AO in his remand report dated 21.01.2020 page 43 of PB that assessee had sold two pieces of agriculture land for total of Rs.13,75,800/- ( Rs.6,87,900/- each) on 06.06.2008 whereas
Page 10 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 deposits found in F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) no sale deed & bank statement were furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Time gap between sale of agricultural land & deposit of cash is seen & visible on presusal of the papers. It was then submitted by the Ld. AR that faceless CIT(A) in the impugned order has not taken into consideration the remand report of the Ld. AO dated 21.01.2020 page 43 of P.B. It was finally pleaded that one more opportunity be provided to the assessee to explain his stand before Ld. CIT(A) (faceless) wherein the assessee would file all the relevant papers, material, evidences, documents so that his income could be computed & assessed accordingly to law.
It was assured that in these fresh proceedings before the ld.
CIT(A) the assessee would file copy of remand report dated 21.01.2020 [P43 of PB]. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for the revenue submitted that the revenue has no objection for the matter being remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) as remand report is already on record. The remand to the Ld. AO however was opposed. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee should now file remand report to Faceless CIT(A) & update the records. The hearing was then closed.
Page 11 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 4. Observations Findings & conclusions 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the “impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival submissions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have heard the submissions.
4.3 We basis records of the case as presented to this tribunal & after hearing & upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that the “Impugned Assessment Order” is under section 144 of the Act & at the original stage the matter has not been adjudicated & adjudged basis merits of the case. Even the Impugned order is not on merits. After going through the PB pages 1 to 81 the index of which we reproduce as below:-
Page 12 of 16 Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 Page 13 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 We observe that all these documents indexed as above has not been considered by lower authorities in their respective orders. We observe that at serial no:- 12 page 7 of PB there is an additional evidence application before the Ld. CIT(A).
We also observe & notice sale deeds on pages 10 to 36. We also observe & notice copy of saving bank accounts. We observe & notice remand report of the Ld. AO on page 43 dated 21.01.2020. The assessee has filed reply to remand report pages (46 -47 of PB). In view of our above observations, we are of the considered view that above papers & proceedings including sale deed copies & bank statements together with remand report should now be once again seen by the Ld. CIT(A) afresh. Accordingly we set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) as & by way of remand. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass fresh order on merits which order should be a reasoned one basis merit of the case. The assessee is directed to update the records before the Ld. CIT(A) & file papers relating to remand report.
Page 14 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us as aforesaid, we set aside the “Impugned Order” & remand the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall pass a fresh order basis merit of the case. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the department & follow directions as per para 4.3 (supra).
5 Order 5.1 In view of above, the Impugned order is set aside as & by way of remand back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
5.2 In result, appeals are allowed for statistical purpose. pronounced in open court on 16 .01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore Dated : 16/01/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant
Page 15 of 16
Radhakishan ITA No. 678/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2010-11 (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 16 of 16