HARPREET SINGH,FEROZEPUR CITY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), FEROZEPUR

SA 10/ASR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Harpreet Singh, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the addition of Rs.26,95,975 to his income for the assessment year 2020-21, treating it as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had initially reopened the assessment due to non-filing of the return and unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. Both the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority disposed of the case ex-parte, leading to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 895876 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2026
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 814/ASR/2026 [SA No. 10/Asr/2026 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Years:2020-21) Harpreet Singh, 164, Azad Nagar, Near KR High School, Ferozepur City, Firozpur PAN: BUZPS 5579J Vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BTD BSNL, Guest House, Sher Shah Wali Chowk, Ferozepur Cantt. Firozpur Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 30 / 09 / 2026. ORDER PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: Present appeal arises out of order dated 15.04.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Of course, the stay application filed by the assessee, being SA No. 10/Asr/2026, seeking stay on recovery of demand, is also tagged along with the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 814/Asr/2026 Asst. Year: 2020-21 3. When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Though the assessee has made a request for adjournment by letter dated 28.09.2026, however, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Looking at the grounds raised and the nature of dispute, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served keeping the appeal pending any further. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee, after considering the submissions of learned D.R. and based on materials available on record. 4. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to an addition of Rs.26,95,975/-. The assessee has also raised a ground alleging violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Be that as it may, briefly stated, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Information available in the system of the Department indicated that in the year under consideration, the assessee had made cash deposits in a bank account standing in his name. Being of the view that despite having taxable receipts, assessee did not file any return of income, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment alleging escapement of income. In course of hearing, based on the entries appearing in Form-26AS and others materials available on record, the Assessing Officer noticed that in Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 814/Asr/2026 Asst. Year: 2020-21 the year under consideration, the assessee had made various cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.29,96,850/-. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain the source of such cash deposits. Though, the assessee furnished certain documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits, however, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. Ultimately, he proceeded to treat cash deposits aggregating to Rs.26,95,975/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. 6. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition by filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, alleging that the assessee did not furnish any submission or evidence in support of grounds raised, the First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal ex-parte and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard learned Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the materials on record. Undoubtedly, the First Appellate Authority has disposed of assessee's appeal ex-parte and confirmed the addition alleging that the assessee did not make any submission or furnish any evidence while contesting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, as could be seen from the observations of the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3.2 of the assessment order, the assessee not only furnished a reply to the query raised by Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 814/Asr/2026 Asst. Year: 2020-21 the Assessing Officer, but also submitted certain documentary evidence. Further, the assessee requested an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing. However, not only was the assessee was not granted any personal hearing through video conferencing, but the Assessing Officer made addition under Section 69A of the Act without discussing in detail the nature and acceptability of the submissions made and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee. More surprising is the action of the First Appellate Authority. Though, in the body of the order as also in the observations made in paragraph 5.1 of the appellate order, the First Appellate Authority has clearly stated that the assessee had furnished submissions on 09.04.2026 and 13.04.2026 along with documentary evidences, contradicting his own observation, the First Appellate Authority alleged that no submission or evidence was filed on the grounds raised. 8. On a careful reading of the appellate order, we do not find any discussion therein on the nature of submissions and evidences called for by the first appellate authority. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Departmental Authorities, without properly applying their mind to the submissions made and evidence furnished by the assessee, have mechanically made the addition under Section 69A of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 814/Asr/2026 Asst. Year: 2020-21 9. In view of aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority and restore the issues arising in the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since the impugned order of First Appellate Authority has been set aside with direction to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue de novo, there will be no surviving demand against the assessee. Therefore, the connected stay application has become infructuous. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 30/09/2026) Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Dated : 30 /09/2026. Aks/- Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 814/Asr/2026 Asst. Year: 2020-21 Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File BY ORDER, Printed from counselvise.com "