Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.
For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69
…- consideration of the reply rendered the subsequent re-assessment order passed as invalid. For this proposition, the ITAT Delhi Bench had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of R.K. Buildcreations (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2024) 462 ITR 478 (Rajasthan) wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held that where an additional reply filed by the assessee was not considered, there was no occasion to deal with the objection raised therein and therefore, since the impugned order was not as per the procedure prescribed under section 148A, it could not stand judicial scrutiny. The ld. AR also point…
