MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW V. ITO-3(2), LUCKNOW

ITA 749/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Manoj Dwivedi, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of his appeal by the NFAC due to a 198-day delay in filing. The original assessment for the year 2017-18 included significant additions to his income based on cash deposits during the demonetization period, which were linked to companies where he was a director. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had made these additions under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance with statutory notices and lack of satisfactory explanations regarding the source of the deposits. The NFAC dismissed the appeal primarily on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issues raised by the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471428 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR RAJWANSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6); 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Dwivedi 254, Chandralok Aliganj, Lucknow v. ITO-3(2) Lucknow - New TAN/PAN:AFGPD1753C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 10 02 2025 Date of pronouncement: 12 02 2025 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the National Faceless appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.6,00,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the basis of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- in his Bank ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 Account No.9160200270001 maintained with Axis Bank during the demonetization period and further that another amount of Rs.36,90,000/- was deposited by M/s Samadhan India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.55,85,000/- was deposited by M/s Abhisht Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. in Oriental Bank of Commerce against the assessee’s PAN AFGPD1753C. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee in response to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO), the AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to Axis Bank, requiring them to furnish the bank statements related to the assessee for the demonetization period, which duly submitted the Bank Statement detailing the cash deposits to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the assessee during the demonetization period. 2.1 The AO also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, requiring them to furnish the details of Bank transactions made against PAN AFGPD1753C. In response, it was stated by the Bank that the assessee (Shri Manoj Dwivedi) having PAN AFGPD1753C is the authorized signatory and Director of following Bank Accounts: 1. 00504011000160 – M/s Abhisht Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2. 00504011000252 - M/s Samadhan India Pvt. Ltd. 3. 00501131001176 - M/s Shri Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 6 2.2 The AO, thereafter, issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to M/s Samadhan India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Abhisht Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., requiring them to explain in which capacity Shri Manoj Dwivedi was related to their Companies and confirm whether the aforesaid amounts have been taxed in their Income Tax Returns for assessment year 2017-18. However, there was no response from the side of these Companies. The AO also issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee providing final opportunity to file his submissions, stating therein that in case of failure on the part of the assessee to make his submissions, the assessment will be completed under section 144 of the Act. Since there was still no compliance from the side of the assessee, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by computing the income of the assessee as under: Income as per return : Rs.6,00,000/- Addition u/s.69A of the Act : Rs.8,00,000/- Addition u/s. 69A of the Act : Rs.92,75,000/- Total income : Rs.1,06,75,000/- 2.3 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act, separately. ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 6 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 198 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Income Returned should have been accepted. 2. That the Learned Lower Court erred in not deciding appeal on merit. 3. That in the facts and legal aspects of the case Learned Lower court erred in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal. 4. That the Learned Lower Court erred in facts and legal aspects of the case in making addition of Rs.1,00,75,000/- U/s 69A. 5. That Learned Lower Court erred in making addition for cash deposited not in the account of appellant but the accounts of the companies in which appellant was Director. 6. That the amount of Rs.8 Lacs was deposited out of Rs.15 Lacs withdrawn from bank thus the addition made is bad in law. 7. That Learned lower Court erred in making addition u/s 69A on surmises and presumptions only. ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 6 8. That the order passed is against the merit, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. 9. That the appellant seeks permission to modify and/or add any other ground or grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of delay of 198 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority and that the NFAC had not dealt with the issues in dispute on merits. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the NFAC for deciding the issues in dispute on merits of the case. 6. The Ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the NFAC. 7. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal and, thereafter, if the delay is properly explained, condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in ITA No.749/LKW/2024 Page 6 of 6 the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:12/02/2025 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar "