GOPAL KRISHNA MISHRA,KANPUR vs. ITO-2(4), KANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. This was agreed upon by both parties due to gaps in the factual matrix.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 23,94,320/- under Section 69A of the IT Act, rejecting the assessee's explanation for the source of funds for property investment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, sustaining an addition of Rs. 13,94,320/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made under Section 69A was justified, and whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment and appellate proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2014-15 against impugned appellate order dated 20/06/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065868329(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 30/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.31,49,520/- as against returned income of Rs.7,55,200/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.23,94,320/- was made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the I. T. Act, rejecting the assessee’s explanation regarding source of funds for investment in property to the extent of Rs.23,94,320/-. The assessee’s appeal was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 20/06/2024. Vide impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal, sustaining the addition of Rs.13,94,320/- and deleting the remaining amount. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 20/06/2024.
(B) At the time of hearing before us, learned A.R. for the assessee, submitted that the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A) has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He also submitted that the aforesaid orders have been passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) respectively based on misconstrued understanding of facts. He also submitted that on a proper understanding of the full facts of the case, there was no case for any addition u/s 69A of the Act. the learned A.R. expressed willingness to explain the facts once again to the Assessing Officer and for this purpose he requested that the issue in dispute be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh order on this limited issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to this, while accepting that there were gaps in the factual matrix as discernible from the records and the matter requires de novo hearing before the Assessing Officer.
(C) In view of the foregoing, the issue in dispute in the present appeal is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order on this specific issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
(D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/12/2024)
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026