BYAS PRASAD VERMA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.07.2023, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.16,45,000/- in his saving bank account. In order to examine these facts, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the source of cash deposits in his bank accounts. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the AO. The AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act. While completing the assessment under section 147 read with 144 of the Act, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.16,45,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account during the year under consideration as his unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Apart from this, the AO also added a sum of Rs.75,594/- to the total income of the assessee under the head ‘other source of income’, being bank interest received by the assessee from PNB.

2.1 The Assessing Officer 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 NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee.

2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:

and then dispose of the same in writing with the reason of his decision.

5. BECAUSE the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in adding all the bank credit entries in the income of appellant without going into the roots of transactions.

6. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that that Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the I.T. Act requires the CIT(A) to apply his own mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him.

7. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that the service of notice is mandatory u/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961. The Ld. A.O. in his order has kept mum about the service of the notice which reveals that the notice U/s 148 was not served within the statutory time limit.

8. BECAUSE learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate the facts, explanations and evidences of the transactions of the captioned joint operative saving bank account.

9. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that the assessment made through the unserved statutory notice U/s 148 of the I.T. Act 1961 deserves to be declared null and void 10. BECAUSE the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to modify, to withdraw and/or altogether raise any ground/ grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal.

3.0 None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application dated 08.10.2025, seeking adjournment was placed before me citing the reason that the Counsel of the assessee fell down and the Doctor attending him has advised complete bed rest for a fortnight and, therefore, the written submission and reply could not be prepared. However, looking into facts of the case, I reject the adjournment application and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

4.0 Since the order passed by the AO was under section 144 of the Act and the NFAC had dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, the ld. D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5.0 I have heard perused the material on record. It is evident that the orders passed by both the authorities are ex- parte qua the assessee. 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 NFAC 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 10/10/2025.