AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

ITA 101/PAT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amrendra Pratap Singh, an agriculturist, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was regarding the additions made to his income based on unexplained bank deposits, which the authorities attributed to unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that these deposits were proceeds from the sale of ancestral agricultural land, which should not be taxable. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case and thus remanded the matter back to the Income Tax Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780598 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 54; 271(1)(c); 54F

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(1), Gaya (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ASIPS0244A Appearances: Assessee represented by : Abhi Sarkar, Adv. Department represented by : Rajat Datta, CIT(DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 16-September-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 07-October-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 dated 15.01.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 18.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 15/01/2025 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072165748(1) passed under Section 250 of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. First Appellate Authority, viz, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 18.12.2019 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1022610374(1) passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13, by the ld. assessing officer, namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Gaya, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth at the time of assessment proceeding. 5. For that the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the order of the ld. assessing officer is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures. 6. For that the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the order of the ld. assessing officer is wholly perverse in as much as the same are contrary to and at variance with the materials available on record. 7. For that the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer is far from best judgment assessment as envisaged in Section 144 of the Act. 8. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not referring the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment as per the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act, inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2024, notwithstanding the fact that the order of assessment was passed under section 144 and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has passed the impugn appellate order after the above amendment of law. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the aggregate amount of Rs.90,32,200 credited in bank account with Canara Bank bearing Account No.1191101016447, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year 2012-13 is unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the basis of some information shared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 1, Varanasi, notwithstanding the fact that the said amount was from sale of ancestral agricultural land which was outside the ambit of income tax more particularly capital gain under the Act. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the aggregate amount of Rs.18,49,913 credited in bank account with ICICI Bank bearing Account No.100601502308, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year 2012-13 is unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the basis of some information shared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 1, Varanasi, notwithstanding the fact that the said amount was from sale of ancestral agricultural land which was outside the ambit of income tax more particularly capital gain under the Act. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the interest aggregating to Rs.1,77,580, being Rs.99,913 credited in ICICI Bank and Rs.77,667 credited in Canara Bank, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year 2012-13 is taxable, notwithstanding the fact that the total income of the appellant was below the threshold of tax as per the Act. 12. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the deposits/credits in the bank account were not on account of sale ancestral agricultural land. 13. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the appellant has not sold any ancestral agricultural land. 14. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in not adjudicating on the fact that the sale proceeds of the ancestral agricultural land were used for construction of new residential house which was exempt as per the provisions of Section 54 and/or 54F of the Act. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and had earnings from sale of agricultural produce. The assessee had given a power of attorney to Sri Satish Singh for sale of agricultural land at ₹1.25 Lakh per Biswa on 10.10.2011 and claims to have deposited cash of ₹1.75 Crore in the bank account of ICICI Bank Ltd. and ₹55,47,200/- in the bank account of Canara Bank out of sale proceeds of agricultural land. The Ld. AO, on the basis of information received from the ADIT (Inv.), Unit-1, Varanasi regarding deposit of cash, issued notices u/s 148 of the Act but no return of income was filed in compliance to the notice issued. Subsequent notices were also not complied with. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. Therefore, the Ld. AO added an amount of ₹90,32,200/- deposited in Canara Bank, ₹18,49,913/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. and also added interest of ₹1,77,580/- to the total income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹1,10,59,693/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has gone through the facts of the case and has held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that the facts and findings of the Ld. AO were incorrect and in the instant case the as the assessee did not produce sale deeds nor filed any information called for in response to the notice issued u/s 250 of the Act, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the remand report submitted by the Ld. AO and upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. In Ground no. 8, the assessee has stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not referring the case back to the Ld. AO for making a fresh assessment as per the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act inserted with effect from 01.10.2024 and since the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land were deposited in the bank account, there was no justification for the Ld. AO to make the addition. In Ground no. 14 it is stated that the sale proceeds were used for construction of new residential house and, therefore, the same was also exempt u/s 54 and/or 54F of the Act. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO so that proper submission could be made as adequate opportunity was not provided to the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. assessee. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but did not oppose the request of the assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions made. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the order of the Ld. AO and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 07.10.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Amrendra Pratap Singh, N-8/179, Kailashpuri Colony, Sunderpur B.O., Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221005. 2. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Gaya. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "