MANOJ KHANA,SHAHJAHANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I(4), SHAHJAHANPUR

ITA 199/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Manoj Khanna, a retail trader dealing in gold and silver ornaments and a pawning business, who appealed against the addition of Rs.4,90,000 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer initially assessed Khanna's income at Rs.12,78,520, significantly higher than the Rs.4,90,000 he declared. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to Khanna's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's arguments and remanded the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633473 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER SAXENA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.199/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.199/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 Manoj Khanna Prop. Ganesh Prasad Manoj Kumar Bahadurganj, Shahjahanpur. PAN:ABWPK1290M Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shahjahanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.199/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 15/10/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1072192447(1) of ADDL/Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). (A.1) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and retail trader dealing in gold & silver ornaments and pawning business and maintains two sets of accounts i.e. for retail trade and pawning business. The assessee filed his return of income on 18/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.4,90,000/-. Assessment order dated 21/11/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Appellant by Shri Sameer Saxena, Advocate Respondent by Shri Amit Kumar Addl. CIT (D.R.) I.T.A. No.199/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.12,78,520/- as against returned income of Rs.7,88,520/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.4,90,000/- was made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 15/01/2025, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid additions of Rs.4,90,000/- and dismissed the assessee’s appeal The present appeal has been filed by the assessee in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 15/01/2025 of learned CIT(A). (B) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. During the course of hearing learned Counsel for the assessee submitted the assessee had deposited Rs.4,90,000/- out of cash in hand. He further submitted the assessee has a license to maintain a pawning set (Third Banker) and it is his business to lend money in cash after hypothecating article and charge interest as per norms. The assessee always maintains a cash balance to run its business. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act without considering the cash flow statement, month wise break up of receipts and deposit in cash, sales and purchases without pointing out any defect in account books. He also submitted that the learned CIT(A) accepted the Assessing Officer’s version and has not passed speaking order. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer rejected the cashflow statement submitted by the assessee stating that it appears to be unrealistic. However, this observation has been made without any basis and without any convincing reason. In view of the submissions made by the I.T.A. No.199/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 learned Counsel for the assessee, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 15/01/2025 to the file of learned CIT(A) and we direct the learned CIT(A) to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 12/06/2025) Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated:12/06/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., "