DR. AMOD KUMAR SACHAN,LUCKNOW V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), LUCKNOW

ITSSA 203/LKW/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by both the assessee, Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan, and the Revenue against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Lucknow. The appeals were consolidated due to common grounds and were addressed together. The primary issues revolved around the addition of unexplained deposits and interest income to the assessee's income, which were initially attributed to him but later contested based on the findings of the Income Tax Settlement Commission and subsequent judicial observations. The Tribunal's decision to restore the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) was based on the need for a fresh evaluation of the evidence and the impact of the High Court's decision setting aside the Settlement Commission's orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705733 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd, Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, CIT vs Raj Kumar Arora
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.K. AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G.C. SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Set aside; Tax effect; Gift; Capital Gains; Search and seizure; Charitable institution; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 56; 132; 153A; 54F; 69; 133(6); 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos.200 to 205/LKW/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14 Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan A-427, Indira Nagar, Lucknow- 226016. v. DCIT Central Circle-1, Lucknow 13/1, Moti Chamber, YMCA Building, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow- 226001. PAN: AJVPS0265Rl (Appellant) (Respondent) IT(SS)A Nos.236 & 237/LKW/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 DCIT Central Circle-1, Lucknow 13/1, Moti Chamber, YMCA Building, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow-226001. v. Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan A-427, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. PAN: AJVPS0265Rl (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.76 & 77/LKW/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2009-10 DCIT Central Circle-1, Lucknow 13/1, Moti Chamber, YMCA Building, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow-226001. v. Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan A-427, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016. PAN: AJVPS0265Rl (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv Ms Kannopriya Gupta, Adv Respondent by: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 02 06 2025 Date of pronouncement: 30 06 2025 IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 2 of 17 O R D E R PER BENCH.: These ten appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the various orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Lucknow. As the grounds involved in all these appeals are common and as they were taken up for hearing together, these appeals are being taken up for disposal together. As the A.Y. 2008-09 is the first assessment year, it is taken up for disposal as the lead case and our findings recorded in IT(SS)A. No.200/LKW/2019, will apply mutatis mutandis for all other appeals on the issues contained therein. With regard to individual issues that may arise in different appeals, they would be addressed separately in the course of this order. The grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A. No.200/LKW/2019 are as under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Lucknow, has erred in law as well as on facts, in confirming u/s 56 the addition of Rs.19,350/- made on account of interest deposits in the bank account of Axis Bank, Indira Nagar, Lucknow bearing account no.3550100066088 when it is held by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission that the deposits do not belong to the assessee. These were duly disclosed and surrendered as income in the hands of Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd. (Annexure C of the Settlement Application in the case of Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd) The copy of annexure is enclosed below. 2. Any other ground the appellant may raise, during the further course of proceedings.” 2. The facts of the case are, that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) was carried out on 31.07.2013, at the residential premises of the assessee, Dr. A. K. Sachan, along with the other cases of the Hind Group. Subsequently, an order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by the AO. During the course of search, a number of undisclosed bank accounts were unearthed. Of these, six saving bank accounts at Axis Bank, Indira Nagar stood in the name of the assessee. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show cause and furnish information with regard to these six IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 3 of 17 bank accounts, in which he records that huge and periodical deposits were made either by cash or by transfer. He noted that these deposits were not commensurate with the known sources of the income of the assessee, whose only apparent source of income was salary received from King George’s Medical College Hospital, where he was working as a professor in the Department of Pharmacology. Apparently, as the Assessing Officer records, during the course of pre and post assessment proceedings, the assessee had admitted that the amounts deposited in the said accounts were unaccounted. It is also pertinent to mention that at the time of search, the assessee’s wife Dr. Richa Mishra, surrendered a sum of Rs.8,00,00,000/- on behalf of the group as under: - Sr. No Name Amounts (Rs.) 1 Dr. Richa Mishra Rs.5,00,00,000/- 2 Shri Balaji Charitable Trust Rs.1.5 Crores 3 M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd Rs.1.5 Crores 3. At the time of the assessee’s assessment, Dr. Richa Mishra, filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer owning up the deposits in the bank accounts under question. Thereafter, she was cross-examined by the Assessing Officer. After recording the same, the comments of the assessee were invited, in response to which the assessee submitted that he was a professor in KGMU with no resources available to generate such income. On the other hand, Ms. Richa Mishra had accepted the fact that the deposits in the said bank accounts had been made by her, on behalf of herself and various other entities and that Ms. Richa Mishra and Shri Balaji Charitable Trust and M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd had also made separate applications on 27.02.2015 to the Settlement Commission disclosing such deposits as their income. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced by the submissions made by the assessee or Dr. Richa IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 4 of 17 Mishra. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee was not a party before the Settlement Commission and the primary onus was upon him to produce the evidence to prove the deposits made into the said bank accounts, as they stood in his name. However, the assessee had not come forward to explain the nature and source of the deposits and therefore the Assessing Officer added back a sum of Rs.79,83,311/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. He also observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received interest income from the bank accounts no.355010100037095 and 35501000068235, amounting to Rs.19,350/-. However, the assessee had not shown the interest in the Income Tax Return filed by him. Therefore, he added this interest income of Rs.19,350/- to the income of the assessee u/s 56 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer had erred by making the addition of Rs.79,83,311/- as he had ignored the averments given in the affidavit filed by Dr. Richa Mishra and in the statement subsequently recorded. It was submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer had ignored the fact, that the said accounts had been owned up by Dr. Richa Mishra and the income from the sale had been duly offered by her before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Thereafter, the assessee submitted that the Settlement Commission, vide their order dated 19.08.2016, u/s 245D(4) of the Act passed in the cases of M/s. Shekhar Hospital (P.) Ltd, Ms. Richa Mishra and Shri Balaji Charitable Trust, had given a clear finding in para no. 5.4 of its order, that all these six saving bank accounts did not pertain to the assessee IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 5 of 17 and that all the deposits made in these bank accounts during the relevant previous year, pertained to M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. The same had been offered for taxes by M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd and this disclosure had been accepted by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. It was submitted that once the deposits into the bank accounts had been considered in the case of M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd and taxed in the hands of the company, which belongs to the wife of the assessee, then the same could not again be taken as the income of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that since the Hon'ble Settlement Commission had given specific findings on the issues, hence, it was prayed that the addition made by the AO on account of unaccounted deposits in the six saving bank accounts located at Axis Bank, Indira Nagar, Lucknow, may kindly be deleted from the total assessed income of the assessee. The assessee also prayed that since the finding had been recorded that the deposits in the said bank accounts did not pertain to the assessee, it could not be said that the interest income amounting to Rs.19,350/- arising from two of these bank accounts, was assessable in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, it was prayed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) duly considered the submissions filed by the assessee and observed that the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, vide its order dated 19.08.2016 u/s 245D(4) of the Act in the case of M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd, Shri Balaji Charitable Trust and Ms. Richa Mishra, had held that the amounts that were deposited in the six bank accounts belonged to M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd and not to the assessee or Dr. Richa Mishra. Therefore, the following the said order of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 6 of 17 addition of Rs.79,83,311/- made by the AO, on account of deposits in the said bank accounts as the income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act, was unjustified, accordingly the addition was deleted. However, with regard to the issue of interest, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had not adduced any evidence to show that the interest income of Rs.19,350/- had been offered as part of the disclosure before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. Therefore, since the accounts stood in the name of the assessee, she rejected the plea of the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs.19,350/- in the hands of the assessee. 6. Both the Department and the assessee are aggrieved at this decision of the Ld. CIT(A). While the Department was aggrieved at the deletion of the amounts added back u/s 69 of the Act (on account of unaccounted deposits), the assessee was aggrieved at the confirmation of the addition on account of interest. Accordingly, the assessee preferred appeals in A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 on the issue of confirmation of interest while the Department filed appeals in the A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012- 13 and 2013-14 on the issue of deletion of additions made on account of unexplained deposits. The Departmental appeals in the A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2014-15 have already been dismissed by the ITAT on account of low tax effect. The Department has filed miscellaneous applications in this regard, which will be taken up in due course. 7. At this stage, it is also pertinent to examine the background in which the Departmental appeals in A.Y. 2009-10 & A.Y. 2013-14 came to be filed. Aggrieved by the orders of the Settlement Commission, Ld. DCIT Central, Lucknow approached the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.2008 of 2017. After hearing the matter the Hon'ble High Court observed IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 7 of 17 that the Department had filed objections before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, against assessment of the accounts disclosed in the hands of the M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd, Ms. Richa Mishra and Shri Balaji Charitable Trust and submitted that these ought to be assessed in the hands of Dr. A.K. Sachan, whose assessment had already been completed and who was not a party before the Settlement Commission. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Settlement Commission had not considered the inputs/objections submitted by the Department and by not taking into account or dealing with the reply of the Department in their orders, there was a manifest error in the decision making process of the Settlement Commission. Hence, since that order suffered from the vice of arbitrariness, it was accordingly liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the assessee (Dr. A.K. Sachan) had got the benefit of the order passed by the Settlement Commission which had been set aside by this court, by filing appeals against the assessment orders passed by him and further, it observed, that the Department did not prefer any appeal against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals as the tax effect, after giving benefit of the orders passed by the Settlement Commission was less than the limit prescribed for filing and pursuing the appeals before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court accordingly ordered that as the orders passed by the Settlement Commission had been set aside, liberty was granted to the Department to avail appropriate remedy against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on January, 7th 2009 and it observed that, if any such remedy was availed of within the period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the same should not be rejected only on account of delay, but should be considered on merits. The Hon'ble High Court also recorded its observations that the conditions as contained in the circular IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 8 of 17 issued by the CBDT regarding filing or pursuing the appeals at different levels, may have to be re-visited and certain exceptions may have to be carved out to take care of cases such as the one in hand. It is also directed the State Government to make due enquiries with regards to the amounts credited to the said accounts of Dr. A.K. Sachan. Subsequently, the Department filed appeals for the A.Y. 2009-10 (ITA. No. 77/LKW/2023) and A.Y. 2013-14 (ITA. No.76/LKW/2023) and also filed miscellaneous applications against the appeals dismissed by the ITAT prior to the passing of the order by the Hon'ble High Court. 8. On going through the said appeals filed by the Department for the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2013-14, it was observed that the tax effect in these two years was below the prescribed limit for filing and pursuing the appeals before ITAT, as laid down in various CBDT Circulars. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT (DR) was asked to make enquiries from the concerned officer, as to whether the Board had passed any general or special instructions in the matter of the assessee, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, as made in its orders in Writ Petition No.208 of 2017. In response, the Ld. DR submitted a copy of Circular No. 5/2024 that was presently in operation. It was further submitted that these two appeals were covered by para no. 3.1(i) exceptions laid down in the said circular, which stated that appeals could be filed irrespective of monetary limits where mandated by the courts direction. Accordingly, it was prayed that the two appeals in question, were maintainable and should therefore be admitted. On the contrary, G.C. Srivastava, the Ld. AR submitted that there was no direction to the Revenue to file an appeal. Rather, the Revenue had been granted the liberty to file appeals and the limitation had been waived by the orders of the courts. The Court had also asked the CBDT to consider its circular for cases such IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 9 of 17 as that was taken up for decision by the Hon'ble Court, but the same would not be covered by para no. 3.1(i) of Circular No.5/2024, because the court had not given any direction for the filing of the appeal irrespective of monetary limit. 9. We have duly considered this matter. In our view, the Hon'ble Court had granted the liberty to the Income Tax Department to avail appropriate remedy against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and ordered that if such remedy was availed of within a period of one month, then it would not be dismissed only on account of delay, but was to be considered on account of merits. This portion is clearly an order of the Hon'ble High Court on the matter and therefore the delay in filing the appeals, would necessarily have to be condoned in compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. However, we also observe that the Hon'ble High Court had not modified the circular of the CBDT or provided an exception for these cases but rather recorded its observations that the CBDT needed to carve out exceptions for cases such as these. The said observation of the Hon'ble High Court cannot be regarded as the directions of the Hon'ble Court to file the appeals. Granting of liberty to file the appeal, is in our opinion not the same thing as the directing the filing of the appeal. Accordingly, in our view paragraph no. 3.1 (i) would not help the Department in the face of its own policy decision of foregoing appeals in matters where the tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/- (in the case of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal). In our view, the logical course for the Department, would have been to write to the CBDT, with a copy of the Hon'ble High Courts’ orders and seek permission to file the appeals in the case of the assessee, irrespective of monetary limit. However, since this has clearly not been done and there exist no general or special instructions that allows the Department to pursue IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 10 of 17 these appeals, therefore, in view of the stated policy of the Department of not pursuing appeals where tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/-, we decline to admit appeal IT(SS)A. No.77/LKW/2023 & IT(SS)A. No. 76/LKW/2023 for the A.Y. 2009-10 and the A.Y. 2013-14. Both these appeals are accordingly, dismissed. 10. Coming back to the remaining appeals filed by the Department and the assessee, the Ld. AR for the assessee Shri G.C. Srivastava submitted that the Department had not given appeal effect to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, the Settlement Commission order was still in force. Furthermore, it was submitted that M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd, Ms. Richa Mishra and Shri Balaji Charitable Trust had filed SLPs against the order of the Hon'ble High Court, which was still pending for a decision in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld.AR submitted, that since the appeal effect had not been given to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the amounts remained as taxed in the hands of M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd and Ms. Richa Mishra, adding the same back in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. However, on a query, he acknowledged the fact that the orders of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission had been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, as on date the Ld. CIT(A) was required to consider the issue on merits without feeling compelled to follow those orders of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. He, therefore, had no objection to the matter being restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, but pleaded that it should be ordered that the Ld. CIT(A) hear the case with an open mind, by considering the evidences offered by Dr. Richa Mishra and M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. The Ld. AR also submitted that since the deposits IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 11 of 17 in the bank account did not belong to the assessee, therefore, the interest arising out of such deposits could not be said to belong to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that it could not be added in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR also offered submissions on certain other additions, which had been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that in the A.Y. 2010-11, the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- received as loan from M/s. Anuj Tour & Travels Pvt Ltd only on account of the fact that the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act could not be delivered as the Delhi office of the creditor which was under repairs and renovation. It was submitted that the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- had not emerged out of any seized material and the additions have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the case of CIT vs Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 (Alld), but now that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had effectively overruled this decision by virtue of decision in the matter of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)/(2023) 293 Taxman 141 (SC)/(2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), this addition had no legs to stand on. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs.25,50,000/- made by AO in the A.Y. 2010-11, on account of gift from the mother of the assessee, Smt. Kesh Kali Sachan, ignoring the fact that the assessee had furnished the Khatuni of land owned by her to show that she had agricultural income, merely on the fact that lady in question did not file in Income Tax Returns. The Ld. AR submitted, that in view of the fact that the she was an agriculturist, she was not required to file Income Tax Returns and it was accordingly prayed that the matter may be sent back to the Ld. CIT(A), to consider the issue on merits on the basis of the evidences filed by the donor. The Ld. AR also submitted that in the A.Y. 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed an addition made by the AO by disallowing the exemption IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 12 of 17 claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act, only because the same had not been claimed in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act. It was submitted that since this was a deduction that was allowable to the assessee as per law, and the Ld. CIT(A) was not bound by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), she should have considered the issue on its merits and not dismissed it only on this account. Accordingly, it was prayed that the matter may be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits of the case. He also questioned the addition of Rs.1,64,69,372/- in the A.Y. 2013-14 on account of LTCG claimed exempt, stating that the same did not arise out of incriminating material found during the search. 11. On the other hand, Shri R. K. Agarwal, Ld. DR arguing for the Department in A.Y. 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 submitted that it was incorrect to say that the Department had not given effect to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. It was submitted that fresh proceedings have been initiated by the Interim Board of Settlement Commission in respect of the cases of Ms. Richa Mishra, M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd and Shri Balaji Charitable Trust. Notices have also been issued on 25.05.2023 for the revival of assessment proceedings in the cases of Richa Mishra, and M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd. Presently the hearings had been adjourned sine-die, since the SLPs of the assessee was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was submitted that counter affidavit had already been filed by the Department in respect of SLPs filed by Richa Mishra and M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt Ltd. Thus, since the remedial action was already in process in the cases of the assessees who had unjustifiably offered the income before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, it was incorrect to say that effect had not been IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 13 of 17 given to the Hon'ble High Court’s orders. With regard to the case of the assessee, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that it was apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) had not given an independent findings of fact on the issue of who had made deposits in the said six bank accounts at Axis Bank, Indira Nagar because she was acting in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. Now that the orders of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission stood vacated, it was required that the issue should be independently considered by the Ld. CIT(A), in the light of the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he requested that in all the assessment years before the Tribunal, the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision as to whom, the accounts deposited in the bank accounts of Dr. A.K. Sachan, should be assessed in the hands of. With regard to the issue of interest, it was submitted that since the matter of whose hands the amounts were to be assessed were before the Ld. CIT(A), it would be fitness of things, if the issue of interest arising out of those deposits were also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision. He also argued that since the orders of the Settlement Commission stood vacated, the matter of confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,64,69,,372/- on account of bogus capital gains claimed by the assessee, should now be upheld in his hands. As regards, the issue of additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of loan from M/s. Anuj Tour & Travels Pvt Ltd gift from the mother of the assessee and the issue of allowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act the Ld. CIT-DR had no objection to the same being restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 12. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is evident from the records placed before us that the Ld. CIT(A) did not take any independent decision on whether the IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 14 of 17 deposits in the said bank accounts standing in the name of the assessee at Axis Bank, Indira Nagar, Lucknow were duly explained in his hands or belonged to someone else, as she was guided by the findings of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission in its orders passed u/s 245D(4) of the Act. However, now that the orders of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission have been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.208 of 2017, the fact of whether the deposits in the said bank accounts are those of the assessee or some other entity and the extent to which the deposits are unexplained in the hands of the assessee are to be decided by the Ld. CIT(A) on the merits of the evidences presented by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order and arguments and materials presented by the assessee before him. Accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals in IT(SS)A. No.236/LKW/2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and IT(SS)A. No.237/LKW/2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, since the issue of who is the beneficiary of these accounts is to be decided by Ld. CIT(A), it is only appropriate that the issue as to who the interest should be assessed in the hands of, is also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration. On the issue of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- received from M/s. Anuj Tour & Travels Pvt Ltd, we have duly noted the submission of the assessee that there is no incriminating material recovered during the search that justifies addition of this amount in an assessment passed u/s 153A of the Act, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra). However, the fact of whether or not there exists incriminating material is a matter to be looked into by the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the issue and therefore we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for appropriate decision in the matter. On the issue of receipt of IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 15 of 17 gift from the assessee’s mother of Rs.25,50,000/-, which has been added back as unexplained on account of her not filing an Income Tax Return, we observe that the Ld.CIT(A) has not taken into account the fact that the said person is an agriculturist having substantial agriculture land which is reflected in the Khatuni filed by her during the course of proceedings. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue on its merits, without being influenced by the failure to file an Income Tax Return, on the account that it is not a requirement for those only having agriculture income, to file Income Tax Return. Accordingly, this matter is also deemed fit to be looked into by the Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, which has been disallowed by Ld. CIT(A) on account of the fact that the claim did not figure in the return filed by the assessee u/s 139 of the Act which was subsequently claimed as the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) being an appellate authority is not bound by the prohibitions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra), but is entitled to look into whether the assessee eligible to claim the benefit on the facts of the case and according to the provisions of law. We, therefore, restore this matter also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-consideration of the matter. We also observe that in the A.Y. 2013-14, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of Rs.1,64,69,372/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and the assessee has claimed that equity-shares of company in question were purchased by Dr. Richa Mishra in the whose case the Hon'ble Settlement Commission had held that the transaction was genuine. Since the order of Settlement Commission have now been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.208 of 2017, in order to give the assessee a proper opportunity to IT(SS)A Nos.200 TO 205/LKW/2019 and etc Page 16 of 17 explain before the Ld. CIT(A) as to why additions should not be confirmed in his hands, we restore this matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after considering all the evidences and also the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd (supra). Therefore, since all the issues that have been raised by assessee in his various appeals namely IT(SS)A. No.200/LKW/2019 to 205/LKW/2019 have been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), the appeals of the assessee in all cases are held to be allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, ITA. Nos. 76/LKW/2023 and & 77/LKW/2023 are dismissed and IT(SS)A. Nos. 236 & 237/LKW/2023 of the Department, are allowed for statistical purposes. IT(SS)A. Nos. 200 to 205/LKW/2019 of the assessee are all allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/06/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)/sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order True Copy// Assistant Registrar "