Ravindra Singh, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 113/LKW/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ravindra Singh, the appellant, who contested an assessment order from the Income Tax Officer, which added Rs. 14,11,892 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was based on unaccounted cash deposits and credit entries in his bank account, identified during a scrutiny under Operation Clean Money. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upheld the addition after the appellant failed to comply with notices requiring detailed explanations. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by the appellant, including a bank statement, had not been examined by the lower authorities and thus warranted a re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123042 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.113/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravindra Singh, W No. 7 New W No.12, Vikas Nagar, Jhinjhak Mangalpur, Derapur, Kanpur Dehat PAN: EITPS8375F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(3), Kanpur (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under Operation Clean Money (OCM) on the basis of data made available regarding cash deposits during demonetization period and other credit entries for the relevant period. The statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was issued to the assessee Appellant by Shri Ravindra Singh (Assessee in Person), Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing 12/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 17/10/2023 I.T.A. No.113/Lkw/2023 2 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. The notice was sent both through the electronic made as well as via speed post but there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, as per the data available, it was seen that the assessee had made cash deposits in Bank Account No. 31110535876 with the State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and that there were further credit entries in the same bank account to the tune of Rs.4,11,892/-. The Assessing Officer proceeded to add the amount at Rs.14,11,892/- to the income of the assessee in terms of Provisions of Section 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the National Faceless Appeal Centre challenging the addition. However, since the assessee did not submit any details in response to the notice dated 25.02.2021 calling for various details, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Assessment Order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in an Ex-Parte manner by the Ld. A.O and the Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law in sustaining the assessment order I.T.A. No.113/Lkw/2023 3 without considering and appreciating the facts, therefore the Assessment Order is unsustainable in law and addition made by the Ld. A.O. is liable to be deleted. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary addition made by the Ld. A.O. amounting to Rs. 14,11,892/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the returned income of the appellant, therefore the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed and addition made by the Ld. A.O. is liable to be deleted. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary Addition made by the Ld. A.O. amounting to Rs. 14,11,892/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the returned income of the appellant ignoring the fact that the cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- was withdrawn from bank and within two days the same was deposited again in bank. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary addition amounting to Rs. 14,11,892/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the income of the appellant is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily dismissing the appeal of the appellant in an ex-parte manner without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary Addition made by the Ld. A.O. which is much too high and excessive and deserves to be deleted. I.T.A. No.113/Lkw/2023 4 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the arbitrary Addition made by the Ld. A.O. and the same is contrary to the Principles of natural justice and equity and deserves to be deleted. 8. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi passed the First Appellate Order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard in an ex-parte manner, therefore the said order is deserves to be set aside and consequently relief may please be granted to the appellant. 9. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the invoking section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. 10. That the impugned assessment order has been passed without following the laid down procedure as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT Circular/Notification/ Instruction, therefore the impugned assessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 11. That any other relief or reliefs as your honour may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted. 12. Your humble appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw of any Grounds of Appeal on/or before hearing of appeal.” 5. The assessee, Shri Ravindra Singh, appeared in person before this Court and submitted that the deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- had been made on 10.11.2016 out of cash withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000/- made on 08.11.2016 vide Cheque No.502321. He drew my attention to the copy of I.T.A. No.113/Lkw/2023 5 Bank account in this regard and submitted that the amount at Rs.10,00,000/- deposited on 10.11.2016 was not out of any earning but was out of the cash withdrawn on 08.11.2016 only and, therefore, no addition was called for. 6. Per contra, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not made any compliance before either of the lower authorities and, therefore, the evidence now being submitted had not been verified by either of them. 7. I have heard both the parties and have also gone through record. I agree with the argument of the ld. Senior D.R. that the evidence in form of bank statement has not been examined by either the Assessing Officer or the NFAC and, therefore, the same needs to be looked into by the lower authority. Accordingly, I deem it fit to restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to admit the bank statement as has been filed by the assessee in this regard, along with any other further explanations and evidences which the assessee might deem I.T.A. No.113/Lkw/2023 6 it appropriate to file in this regard and, thereafter, adjudicate the issue afresh, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case. 8. In the final result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2023) Sd/- (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Judicial Member Dated: 17/10/2023 Aks Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar