ARVIND SINGH,LUCKNOW V. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

ITA 399/LKW/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Arvind Singh, the proprietor of M/s Gangotri Hi-Tech Filling Station, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had added unexplained cash credits of Rs.99,70,000 to the assessee's income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to insufficient explanation and documentation regarding cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the absence of supporting documents from the assessee, decided to restore the case to the Assessing Officer, providing the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712573 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.399/LKW/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Singh 3001, Heritage apartment Park Road, Hazratganj Lucknow v. The ITO-2(1) Lucknow-New TAN/PAN:ANMPS6686H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.10.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s Gangotri Hi-Tech Filling Station, Haliapur and was engaged in retail trade of Petroleum products. The assessee e-filed his return of income for the year under consideration, in individual capacity, on 23.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.8,49,870/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO noticed that the assessee had made cash Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.399/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 5 deposits in Bank account No.18060200000183, maintained with Bank of Baroda. The assessee was required to furnish the details of month-wise cash sales, purchase, stock, cash flow, etc. and substantiate the cash deposits made in the aforementioned Bank account. The submission of the assessee before the AO was that the Petrol Pumps were allowed to take old Specified Bank Notes (SBN) till 3rd December, 2016 and that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.99,70,000/- from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Thereafter, the AO asked the assessee to furnish comparative trade results and details of stock. Since the assessee failed to offer satisfactory explanation and furnish necessary documents with regard to the aforementioned cash credits, the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credits and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,08,19,870/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the Assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.399/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 5 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is not based on the facts of the case and is not legal. 2. The authorities below have wrongly treated the sale proceeds amounting to Rs.99,70,000/-as unexplained cash credits. 3. Any other ground that may be taken up with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Bench. 5.0 None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, an application dated Nil, seeking adjournment was placed before us citing the reason that the Senior Counsel of the assessee, Shri Gurmeet Singh Walia was going out of station for some personal work on the date fixed for hearing and, therefore, it may not be possible to argue the case. However, looking into facts of the case, we reject the adjournment application and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 6.0 The Ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. 7.0 We have heard the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. The AO in his order had observed that the assessee had not furnished any supporting documents in support of the cash deposits made in the Bank account. The NFAC too, vide paragraph 5 (page 3) of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.399/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 5 its order observed that the assessee did not furnish any books of account to substantiate the cash deposits in the Bank account during the period of demonetization and that the details of SBN and verified stock statements were also not furnished by the assessee. Looking into these facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, we restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the Assessee to present his case and produce the necessary evidences/documents in support of the transactions entered into by the Assessee. We also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee. 8.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:31/07/2025 JJ: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.399/LKW/2023 Page 5 of 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO Printed from counselvise.com "