RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

This appeal in ITA No. 278/Agr/2024 for the assessment year

2014-15 has arisen from the appellate order dated 26.06.2024 [DIN &

Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066066549(1)], passed by

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

appeal before learned CIT(A) has in-turn arisen from the re-assessment

order dated 25.03.2022 passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 147 read with

section 144read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, as well as

additional groundsof appeal filed by the assessee with Tribunal in ITA

No. 278/Agr/2024,reads as under :

“1 That the appellate order passed dated 26.06.2024 is bad in law being passed not inconsonance with the provisions of Sub-Section (6) of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, the appellate order is liable to be set aside. 2 That while passing of the order, the learned CIT (Appeals) has not disposed of the grounds are being taken by the appellant in the appeal. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law, liable to be set aside. 3 That the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is liable to be set aside being passed without taking into consideration the facts that the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in the case of the appellant. The AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 4 That without prejudice to the relief allowed as per grounds, as above, the authorities below have not considered the replies of the appellant filed before them, after taking into consideration the replies and the submissions made before them, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals) is liable to be deleted. 5 That while sustaining the addition as made by the AO, the learned CIT (Appeals) has completely ignored the fact that the deposit in the bank account is either out of transfer entries made from other bank account of the appellant or out of sale consideration of the assessee. 2 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

The authorities below have also ignored that most of the deposits are through banking channel represent the sale amount, taking into consideration the above, no addition is called for, addition made by the AO, sustained by the learned CIT (Appeals) is liable to be deleted. Additional legal Ground No. 6- "6. That the provisions of sec 69A are not attracted in the case of assessee which the NFAC has ignored while passing the order and also has not disposed the specific ground no-7 taken, opposing the invoking of sec 69A of Income Tax Act, the order passed by NFAC is bad in law liable to be set-a-side" Additional legal Ground No.7- "7. That no notice U/s 148 can be issued being in this case the assessment U/s 143(3) has been completed on 15.12.2016 and after passing of four year from the relevant assessment year, notice U/s 148 is issued which is against the proviso to of sec 147, notice issued U/s 148 is bad in law same is liable to be quashed." That the aforesaid grounds which are now being taken, may kindly be admitted as additional legal grounds and the appeal of the appellant may kindly be decided after taking into consideration the above submissions.”

income for the impugned assessment year originally on 01.04.2015 ,

declaring total income of Rs.6,73,340/-. Case of the assessee was

originally selected by Revenue for framing limited scrutiny through CASS.

The assessment was originally completed u/s. 143(3) on 15.12.2016 ,

assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.7,54,500/-. Thereafter, on

perusal of the case record, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that

the assessee had deposited total amount of Rs.2,02,32,638/- in his bank

account during the year under consideration, while the assessee has

disclosed turnover of Rs.80,30,790/- for the year under consideration. 3 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

Thus , the AO was of the view that the assessee has deliberately shown

his turnover on the lower side by Rs.1,22,01,848/- , hence this amount

was not included in the books of accounts and the assessee has evaded

tax liability. This led to reopening of the concluded assessment u/s. 147

of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Notice u/s. 148 was

issued by the AO, dated 30.03.2021 ,which was claimed by the AO to

have been duly served on the assessee, after recording of the reasons

for reopening of the concluded assessment . In response, no reply was

received by the AO from the assessee. The AO observed that the

assessee has not filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148.

The Statutory notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee.

There was no response by the assessee. Case was transferred by

Revenue to complete the proceedings in faceless manner. Fresh notice

u/s 142(1) was issued. The assessee filed reply on 21.12.2021

requesting to provide copy of recorded reasons for reopening. The

assessee also submitted copy of ITR filed originally and stated that the

same may be treated as the ITR filed in response to notice issued by the

Assessing Officer u/s. 148. Copy of recorded reasons for reopening of

assessment was provided to the assessee. The assessee filed replies

before the AO as were filed during the original assessment proceedings

but as per AO no documentary evidences/supporting documents were 4 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed from the

perusal of the return of income that the assessee has shown gross

receipts of Rs.80,30,790/- with G.P. of Rs.15,69,075/- (19.53% of Gross

Receipts) and N.P. of Rs.6,58,880/- (8.2% of the Gross Receipts). The

AO observed that the assessee has deposited in his bank account total

amount of Rs.1,68,53,128/-, out of which cash deposits were to the tune

of Rs.1,28,13,500/-. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to

explain the source of the cash deposits, but no reply was furnished by

the assessee. Assessing Officer issued fresh show cause notice dated

15.03.2022 along with draft assessment order proposing to make

addition of Rs.1,28,13,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

The assessee furnished explanation on 17.03.2022 i.e. at the fag end

when the assessment was getting time barred, but it did not find favour

with the Assessing Officer,as the assessee has failed to produce

documentary evidences to substantiate the sourcesfor cash deposited.

The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,28,13,500/- to the income

of the assesseedeemed as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The

AO further held that as the assessee did not filed his return of income in

response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated

30.03.2021 within time prescribed, and the assessee vide letter dated

21.12.2021 requested the AO to treat his original return of income filed 5 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

for assessment year as return of income in response to notice issued u/s

148, the AO treated the said return of income as invalid return of income

in response to notice issued by the AO u/s 148 being not filed within

prescribed time.

and raised as many as 25 grounds of appeal challenging the

reassessment framed by theAO both on merits as well as on

legal/jurisdictional grounds. The assessee submitted in statement of

facts(SOF) that the assessee is regularly assessed to Income-tax since

last so many years. He deals in Tendu Patta business and is maintaining

books of accounts. The assessee stated in SOF filed with ld. CIT(A) that

the assessee filed computation of income, Trading , Profit & Loss

Account and Balance Sheet and various other details as required by the

AO and also produced Books of accounts during the course of

assessment proceedings. The assessee filed return of income originally

on 01.04.2015, which was scrutinized by AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act under

CASS for framing limited scrutiny assessment, wherein assessment

order dated 15.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer and the

income was assessed at Rs.7,54,500/- against the returned income of

Rs.6,73,340/-. The AO during original assessment proceedings

conducted detailed enquiry in respect of credit entries in the bank 6 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

account . Thereafter case of the assessee was reopened by Revenue

u/s. 147 on the ground that the assessee has deposited Rs.2,02,32,638/-

in his bank account, while the turnover disclosed is Rs.80,30,790/-. The

assessee submitted that the return of income originally filed be treated as

the return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s. 148.

Reasons recorded for reopening were supplied to the assessee. The

assessee challenged invocation of section 147 on legal issues but the

legal issues were not decided by the AO. It was submitted that that the

Assessing Officer has added entire cash deposits in the bank account

without giving credit forthe sales of the assessee. There are other

incomes in Profit and loss account, for which no credit was given. Bank

account was fully explained with the books of account. The assessee

also contended that no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued prior to framing of

reassessment order. It was submitted that the reassessment is bad in

law as the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee

has shown lower turnover, while the additions have been made on the

grounds of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account by invoking

the provisions of section 69A of the Act. The assessee deals in the

business of Tendu Patta and proper books of accounts are maintained.

The assessee turnover is Rs. 80,30,790/- . The assessee claimed that

the assessee is eligible for claiming the presumptive scheme of taxation 7 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

u/s. 44AD. The assessee also raised legal challenge to invocation of

provisions of Section 147, as the notice was issued beyond the period of

four years from the end of the assessment year ,while the original

assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There was no failure

on the part of the assesse in making truly and fully disclosure of the

material facts. The assessee also sought to explain that there was

withdrawal of cash which stood deposited back in the bank account , and

there was also inter-banking transaction but the entire amount is taken by

the Assessing Officer to be the turnover of the assessee. Ld.

CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was no

satisfactory explanation given by the assessee with regard to sources of

cash deposits. Learned CIT(Appeals) recorded that the assessee has

raised several jurisdictional issues, but the CIT(Appeals) did not

adjudicate the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by

adjudicating on the merits of additions.

Tribunal and the ld. Counsel for the assessee opened arguments before

the Bench, and submitted that the impugned assessment year is 2014-

Act. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has suppressed

the turnover by Rs.1,22,01,848/- as there are deposits in the bank 8 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

account to the tune of Rs.2,02,32,638/- and the turnover shown by the

assessee is Rs.80,30,790/- and hence, there is suppression of turnover

by Rs.1,22,01,848/-. Notice u/s. 148 was issued on 30.03.2021, which is

beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year. It

was submitted that originally assessment was framed by AO u/s. 143(3),

and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to truly and correctly

declare the income. The case of the assessee was re-opened on the

same facts, which are available on record, the Assessing Officer has

invoked the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act. It was submitted

that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.1,28,13,500/- on

account of total cash deposits in the bank accounts. It was submitted that

the assessee deals in Tendu Leaves. Assessing Officer invoked

provisions of section 147 read with Sec. 148 alleging suppression of

turnover, but the addition has been made on account of cash deposits in

the bank account. It was submitted that the reasons recorded were

supplied to the assessee and the objections of the assessee were not

disposed of by the AO. Attention was drawn to the grounds of appeal

raised before the CIT(Appeals) wherein as many as 25 grounds of

appeal were raised by the assessee both raising challenge to

reassessment on legal grounds as well as on merits. It was submitted

that the learned CIT(Appeals) did not adjudicate the legal/jurisdictional 9 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

challenge made by the assessee to the reassessment framed by the AO.

The learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee despite

elaborate submissions and evidences filed before the CIT(Appeals). No

remand report was called for by the learned CIT(Appeals) with respect to

additional evidences filed before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed cryptic

non speaking order.The learned counsel for the assessee prayed for

setting aside the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo

adjudication of the matter.

submitted that the assessee has never filed return of income in

pursuance to notice u/s. 148. Assessee filed return of income at a very

later stage and the said return of income was declared invalid return of

income by the AO

record. We have observed that the assessee filed return of income for

the impugned assessment year on 01.04.2015 declaring total income of

Rs.6,73,340/-. Return of income was scrutinized originallyby Revenue

u/s. 143(3) for framing limited scrutiny underCASS, and assessment was

completed u/s. 143(3) on 15.12.2016 , assessing total income of the

assessee at Rs.7,54,500/- against returned income of Rs.6,73,340/- . It

was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had deposited 10 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

total amount of Rs.2,02,32,638/- in his bank account during the year

under consideration, while the assessee has disclosed turnover of

Rs.80,30,790/- ,and there was an escapement of income as per the

Assessing Officer of Rs.1,22,01,848/-, which led to invocation of

provisions of section 147 of the Act by the AO after recording of reasons

for reopening of the concluded assessment . Assessee did not respond

to notice issued by the AO u/s. 148. Notices u/s. 142(1) was issued by

the Assessing Officer. Later on, the assessee came forward and

submitted that the original return of income filed u/s. 139 be treated as

the return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The

assessee submitted replies before the Assessing Officer at the fag end

when the re-assessment was getting time barred, but the reply filed by

the assesseedid not find favour with the Assessing Officer and

Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,28,13,500/- to the income of the

assessee u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money being cash deposits

in the bank accounts. We have observed that the assessee has made

elaborate explanations before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Assessee has also

raised 25 grounds of appeal before the CIT(Appeals) raising

legal/jurisdictional challenge to invocation of section 147 ,as well the

assessee challenged the additions as were made by the AO on merits of

the issues in appeal. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the 11 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

assessee on the ground that the assessee has not been able to

substantiate on merits the cash deposits made with the bank . It was in-

fact a cryptic non speaking order passed by ld. CIT(A) even on merits of

the issue involved in the appeal on the grounds that the assessee failed

to produce the documentary evidences for sources of cash deposits in

the bank account. The assessee on its part also submitted his reply at

fag end when the matter was getting time barred. The learned

CIT(Appeals) never adjudicated the legal grounds raised by the

assessee raising legal/jurisdictional challenge to invocation of Section

147 in the memo of appeal filed with the CIT(Appeals). Gist of such legal

grounds raised by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) is that reasons were

recorded without any basis and without considering original assessment

record while the case of the assessee was duly scrutinized originally u/s.

143(3) of the Act. It was a change of opinion as the entire material was

available before the AO in original assessment proceedings. Thus, there

was change of opinion vis a vis original assessment framed by the

Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) and on the same material , a different view

is sought to be taken by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147, which is not

permissible. The assessee has also raise legal challenge to reopening of

the assessment u/s 147 that Reopening was done on the ground of

suppression of turnover while the additions have been made with respect 12 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

to entire cash deposits in the bank account and hence, additions were

made on different ground than on which the provisions of section 147

were invoked. The re-assessment being framed without issuing notice

u/s 143(2). The ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicated the legal grounds raised by

the assessee. On merits, it is claimed that additions are made of

Rs.1,28,13,500/- without proper examination of facts and without

application of mind. It is also claimed that Reassessment order was

passed u/s. 144 without adhering to principles of natural justice, as no

proper opportunity was given to theassessee. It is also claimed that

treatment of his return of income filed in pursuance to notice u/s. 148 as

invalid by the AO is bad in law. There are other several challenges on

legal grounds as well as on merits raised by the assessee before

CIT(Appeals). We have observed that the learned CIT(Appeals) has

dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating these legal

issues/ grounds raised by the assessee. These legal issues go to the

root of the matter including challenge to jurisdiction on legal grounds,

which may also require investigation of facts . Even on merits, the

appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) is a cryptic non speaking order.

Thus, prejudice has been caused to the assessee by not adjudicating of

all the issues raised by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) and the

order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and in 13 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

the interest of justice and fairness to both the parties, we set aside the

matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication of

appeal of the assessee after giving proper opportunities to both the

parties. The Assessee is allowed to raise all the contentions in its

defense ,and file all the evidences in support of its contentions before ld.

CIT(A), and the learned CIT(Appeals) is directed to admit contentions

raised aswell additional evidences filed by the assessee , both on legal/

jurisdictional issues as well as on merits of the issue in de novo

adjudication proceedings, learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the

same on merits in accordance with law. We order accordingly.

purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.2.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14.2.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

14 | P a g e

ITA No.278/Agr/2024

15 | P a g e