Kailash Nath Gupta, Lakhimpur Kheri V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri

ITA 141/LKW/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8543 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Section: 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.141/Lkw/2021 Assessment year: 2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.141/Lkw/2021 Assessment year: 2017-18 Kailash Nath Gupta, Main Road, Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri PAN: ABKPG 5939K Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 29/10/2021. In this appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. The humble appellant had well explained the availability of Fund (old SBN's) with supporting Cash Flow Fund statement which had not been disputed by the Courts below. 2. The Government had allowed the time to deposit in old Currency in Bank upto December, 2016 and the appellant had deposited the same within the time allowed as per chart given below para 2 of the order of the learned Assessing Officer. 3. That the main objection of the learned Assessing Officer was as to why the entire deposits were not made on a Appellant by Shri Shubham Rastogi, CA Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, DR Date of hearing 27/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 10/08/2022 I.T.A. No.141/Lkw/2021 Assessment year: 2017-18 2 single day whereas there was no such binding of the appellant. 4. That the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) too confirmed the addition without properly considering the facts in a judicious way which is quite illegal.” 2. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal, which may have happened due to postal delay therefore the same may kindly be condoned. 3. Finding the reasons for delay in filing the appeal of one day delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment of the assessee was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and wherein an addition of Rs.2,12,500/- was made u/s. 69A for unexplained deposits in the bank account. It was submitted that total deposits of Rs.7,62,500/- was made, out of which, Rs.5,50,000/- were accepted by the Assessing Officer and addition to the extent of Rs.2,12,500/- was made. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. It was submitted that the proper documents for availability of the cash were submitted to the Assessing Officer which included the receipt of rent and in this respect my attention was invited to PB pgs.24 and 25, where a copy of agreement was placed. It was further submitted that the assessee being a senior citizen, the CBDT Instruction No.3/2017 will be applicable wherein, it has been stated that for senior citizen cash available up to Rs.5.00 lacs has to be accepted per person. In view of above, it was submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee may be allowed. 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material placed on record. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on the assessee I.T.A. No.141/Lkw/2021 Assessment year: 2017-18 3 Shri Kailash Nath Gupta whereas Form-36 filed before Tribunal has been signed by Shri Sujeet Kumar Gupta son of Shri Kailash Nath Gupta. From the order of ld. CIT(A), I find that assessee had died during the proceedings before ld. CIT(A), which fact is verifiable from pg. 9 of CIT(A)’s order. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) was in the knowledge of the fact that assessee was no more and therefore he should have taken on record the legal heir of the assessee and should have passed order on such legal heir whereas he has passed the order on a dead person which is not permissible. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to ld. CIT(A) who should pass a fresh order after taking into account the legal heir of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes (Order pronounced in the open court on 10/08/2022) Sd/- (T.S. Kapoor) Accountant Member Dated: 10/08/2022 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 Assistant Registrar