INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR V. BALDEV PRASAD PATEL, MUNGLI

ITA 646/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur against Baldev Prasad Patel, concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The primary issue was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15,81,34,560 made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the CIT(A)/NFAC allowed based on new evidence not presented during the original assessment. The Revenue contended that this was done in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which mandates that new evidence should not be admitted without a remand report from the AO. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural rules and principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784979 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISHA KINNU
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH SHARMA; VIVEK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Ɋायपीठ रायपुर मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.646/RPR/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur O/o the ITO-2(1), Sriram Plaza Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 .......अपीलाथŎ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Baldev Prasad Patel, S/o Awadh Ram Patel, Bhakurra, Nawapara, Rajpur, Takhatpur, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, 495330 PAN: BIDPP4710J ……ŮȑथŎ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Sharma & Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocates. Revenue by : Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel ITA No.646/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, VP This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short, “NFAC”), Delhi, relating to assessment year 2019-20. 2. The only effective ground raised by the Revenue reads as under: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the addition of Rs. 15.81,34,560/- made u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, despite admitting and relying upon new evidence and submission which were never produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice. 2. Any other ground to be adducted at the time of hearing” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income. As per information available with the department that the assessee, during the FY 2018-19, had made cash deposit to the tune of Rs.15,81,34,560/- and had not filed his return income either u/s 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act, the AO, after recording Printed from counselvise.com 3 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel ITA No.646/RPR/2025 reasons, re-opened the assessment as per the provisions of sec 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2023 was issued and served on the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1) of the Act also remained un-complied with. The AO, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 20.02.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,81,34,560/-. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: “4. In the absence of compliance of any sort on the part of the appellant. the assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 had to be completed under the provisions of section 144. Apparently, the faceless assessment unit made the addition of Rs.15,81,34,560 without even verifying the bank statement. Notices u/s. 133(6) were issued to State Bank of India instead of Punjab National Bank. The appellant submitted an intimation dated 10/12/2019 from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 were dropped in his case. It is mentioned that, during the demonetization period, the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.20,52,500 on different dates. On examination, it was found that the aforesaid bank account is in the name of Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited) BFIL), Pendra Road. In this connection, Punjab National Bank, Branch Pendra has submitted a letter stating that Printed from counselvise.com 4 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel ITA No.646/RPR/2025 Shri Baldev Prasad Patel, PAN BIDPP4710J was working as BM for FY 2016-17 in M/s Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited (BFIL), Pendra Road and he is just an authorized official jointly to sign cheques and other payment instruments for making payments from the Bank accounts opened in the name of BFIL. It has also been stated that all the transactions occurred in the FY 2016-17 in A/c No. 6103002100000889 (current account) relates to M/s Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited. As per directions U/s 144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in view of the above facts, the present assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the above assessment year are being dropped. It is clear from above that the cash deposits in the Punjab National Bank account relates to M/s Bharat Financial Inclusion Limited and not the appellant. As a result, the appeal is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. CIT-DR strongly opposed the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in deleting the addition made by the AO. She submitted that the assessee did not file his return nor responded to the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) and no details were filed for which the AO had made the addition. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, without calling for any remand report from the AO or without giving any opportunity to the AO, had deleted the addition by accepting certain evidences filed by the assessee in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short, IT Rules). She accordingly, Printed from counselvise.com 5 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel ITA No.646/RPR/2025 submitted that the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC be setaside and that of the AO be restored. 7. Ld. AR appearing for the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In his alternate contention, he submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC and AO. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the various statutory notices issued by the AO, he completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 20.02.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,81,34,560/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without calling for any remand report from the AO has accepted certain evidences filed by the assessee and deleted the addition in violation of Rule 46A (3) of the IT Rules. Although, the AO at page No. 3 of the order has mentioned that a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to State Bank of India, however, in subsequent line, he has categorically mentioned that there was cash deposit in Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs.15,81,34,560/-. Therefore, merely on the basis of a typographical error, the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 6 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel ITA No.646/RPR/2025 CIT(A)/NFAC, in our opinion, should not have deleted the huge addition without going through the details of the cash deposits made by the assessee in Punjab National Bank. Since, a perusal of the order of CIT(A)/NFAC shows that he has not applied his mind properly before deleting the additions, has not called for any remand report from the AO and has accepted certain evidences filed before him in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we, deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He may if think proper can call for a remand report from the AO. The ground raised by the revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 14th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY R.K. PANDA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) Printed from counselvise.com 7 Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. Baldev Prasad Patel ITA No.646/RPR/2025 रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक / Dated : 14th November, 2025 HKS, PS आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant. 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर बŐच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //True Copy// // True Copy // Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "