ANKIT GUPTA,ALLAHABAD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 1(1) , ALLAHABAD

ITA 133/ALLD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ankit Gupta, an individual engaged in the business of two-wheeler dealership and authorized workshop of Honda Motor & Scooter India Ltd., who appealed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.1,65,55,042 as unexplained capital under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which was initially added by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the absence of representation for the assessee during the CIT(A) proceedings and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784516 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (P&H)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.K. SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 Assessment year:2017-18 Ankit Gupta 18, Kanpur Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad-211011 PAN:AFBPG9630C Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Range-1(1), Allahabad (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned order dated 20/05/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076302520(1) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of two wheeler dealership of Honda Motor & Appellant by None (Application) Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 Scooter India Ltd. and authorized workshop of Honda Motor & Scooter India Ltd. in the name and style of M/s Shree Grand Auto. The assessee filed his return of income on 29/10/2017, showing an income of Rs.83,58,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/12/2019 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,49,13,482/- by making addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- on account of unexplained capital addition u/s 68 of the I. T. Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 20/05/2025, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. During the course of hearing in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard and materials available on record were perused. The learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue relied on the assessment order, and the impugned order of learned CIT(A). He also opposed remanding back of the matter to either of the two lower authorities relying on the decision of CIT vs. SAS Educational Society [2009] 319 ITR 65 (P&H). 4. Learned Department Representative was heard and materials on record have been perused. In ground 8 of the appeal, the appellant assessee has stated that the appellant was under a bonafide belief that his counsel was submitting the response in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A); however, in the absence of reaponse, an ex-parte appellate order had been passed by the learned CIT(A) alleging that the findings Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.133/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 given by the Assessing Officer could not be rebutted by the appellant. As the appellant assessee has not been represented properly before learned CIT(A), we consider it fit in the interest of substantial justice, in the facts and circumstances of this specific case, to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,65,55,042/- is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (SUBHASH MALGURIA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:10/11/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T. Printed from counselvise.com "