Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order for AY 2017-18, where additions were made for unexplained cash credits and deposits. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to an incomplete address and being settled in a different state, leading to a lack of opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities.
Held
The tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of proceedings and the assessee's lack of opportunity to be heard, decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer. This allows the assessee to present his case and provide necessary information after receiving proper notice.
Key Issues
The key legal issues involve the validity of assessment proceedings due to alleged improper service of notices, the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders, and the additions made under sections 69A for unexplained cash credits and deposits.
Sections Cited
Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 153, Section 144, Section 139(1), Section 69A, Section 80TTA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Site No. 1, City Centre Ward 3(2), Gwalior Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India PAN : AGSPG9180F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Gaurav Goyal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.02.2026 ORDER
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.04.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 391 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the neither the assessee or his representative appeared nor any application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 391 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in order to meet the overall justice, and admits the same as the Department has not raised any objection.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds:
1. BECAUSE in any view, the Assessing Officer never served any valid notice u/s 148 or 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee at the correct address as per records. The address used for service the notice was incomplete, lacking house number or locality, and therefore, assessment proceedings are without serving any valid notice. illegal, unsustainable and void-ab-initio and accordingly the assessment order passed is also liable to be quashed.
2. BECAUSE in any view, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is bad in law, illegal, void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction, as it fails to mention the specific section under which the proceedings were initiated whether u/s 147, 143(3), or 153 thereby making the foundation of the assessment itself vague and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
3. BECAUSE in any view, the assessment order passed by A.O. ex-parte without issuing and serving any notice U/s 143(2) to the assessee is arbitrary, illegal and against the facts of the case.
BECAUSE in any view, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee's income during the relevant year was below the basic exemption limit and therefore, he was not required to file a return of income u/s 139(1), and no adverse inference could be drawn merely from non-filing of return.
BECAUSE in any view, the impugned addition and impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, unjustified, contrary to facts and further without allowing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and without serving the notices as per law.
BECAUSE in any view, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO treating the credits in the Bank account of Rs. 30,05,715/- as unexplained cash credit and cash deposit of Rs 18,38,200/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the appellant without considering the submission and documents submitted by the appellant during the appeal proceedings.
BECAUSE in any view, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- taken by the appellant from Mr. Yash Kumar Goyal as unexplained cash credit without considering the confirmation of accounts submitted by the appellant during the appellant proceedings.
2 | P a g e
BECAUSE in any view, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the cash re-deposit of Rs. 18,38,200/- (being out of earlier cash withdrawals) as unexplained cash credit, without appreciating the facts of the case and detailed explanation submitted by the appellant during the appellant proceedings.
BECAUSE in any view, Ld. AO has erred in treating the saving bank interest received by the appellant of Rs. 3,512/- as unexplained money u/s 69A without allowing the deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act which is bad in law, wrong, illegal and liable for deleted.
BECAUSE the appellant craves leave to add or alter, any or more ground or grounds of Appeal, at the time of hearing of Appeal.
4. At the time of hearing, both the parties brought to our notice that the order passed by both the lower authorities are ex-parte. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information that the assessee had deposited huge cash during the demonitisation period and also not filed any return of income. Several notices were issued to the assesse thru eportal and not complied to any of the notices. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi. The hearing notices were sent to the assessee via eportal and the assessee sought adjournment. Several other notices were issued to the assessee for hearing, the assessee not complied to any of the hearing notices. The Ld CIT(A) proceeded to sustain the addition made by the AO based on the information available on record and he noticed from the submissions that the assessee was not served the relevant notices for hearing before the AO 3 | P a g e and the income was below the taxable limit, also the sources of cash deposits were out of cash withdrawal. He rejected the same and sustained the additions.
5. Before us, the assessee is in appeal and it is fact on record that the assessee never had any opportunity to represent his case, the reason given before us that the assessee was settled in Madhya Pradesh and could not receive any notice which are sent through the eportal. Prayed that this issue may be remitted to the file of AO and Ld DR has no objections to give one more opportunity to the assessee. In my considered view, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the case is remitted to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to redo the assessment after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee also directed to file the relevant information as called for without taking unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026 Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 | P a g e Dated:19.02.2026 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
5 | P a g e