INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW V. HABIB AHMAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 40/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had partially allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to unexplained deposits. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these deposits, which were not voluntarily offered to tax despite several notices. Additionally, the Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s acceptance of a sale deed as proof of deposits, arguing that the proceeds should be taxed under Capital Gains as the land sold was semi-urban. The ITAT, after hearing the Departmental Representative in the absence of the assessee, reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848074 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Lucknow
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.R.N. SHUKLA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer-4(1) Room No.319, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Luckow-226001. PAN:BHGPA8471D Vs. Habib Ahmad S/o Jumnan, 288-Katra, Anshik, Bakkas, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh- 226002. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 has been filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 29.12.2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059204856(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and in facts while deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ignoring that when the; assessee has no explanation to offer for the deposits other than cash, the same has to be added to the total income as the. same was not offered to tax voluntarily or even after issue of various notices in this regard during the 2. Even if the sale deed was accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeal) as proof regarding deposits made in other than cash during the year of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, the same should have been allowed only after bringing them under the purview of Capital Gain, as the sold land pertains to Semi-Urban Land as clearly mentioned in the Sale Deed itself. Appellant by None Respondent by Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 3. Ld. CIT(Appeal) allowed the interest income earned on the deposits during the year of Rs. 1,43,486/- treating the same as explained income. What he failed to appreciate that interest income is part of income of assessee for the year to be taxed.” (B) In this case, assessment order dated 22.11.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,89,65,486/- (Rounded off to Rs.1,89,65,490/-). The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 29.12.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 29.01.2023, the Ld. CIT(A) partially allowed the assessee’s appeal and partly deleted the addition made in the assessment order. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) against the aforesaid order of the learned CIT(A). (C) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short), the appeal was fixed for hearing on several occasions from time to time. However, there was no representation from assessee’s side. On 16.03.2026, when the appeal was called for hearing, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the Ld. Departmental Representative was heard. The Ld. Departmental Representation placed reliance on the assessment order, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below: - Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 4 (C.1) In view of the reasons stated in the assessment order, as recorded in the foregoing paragraphs (C) of this order, and in the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act and the addition on account of disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.1,70,43,486/- are confirmed. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting these additions is reversed. (C.2) In view of the foregoing, the appeal of Revenue is allowed. (D) By way of abundant caution, it is hereby clarified that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT in accordance with law for restoration of this appeal in accordance with Rule 25 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (E) In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 24/03/2026) Sd/. Sd/. (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 24/03/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.40/LKW/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 5 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R. ITAT Printed from counselvise.com "