NAZIR AHMAD QADRI GOUSIA COLONY, NAMBLABAL PAMPORE ,JAMMU AND KASHMIR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4) ANANTNAG JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD UDHAMPUR, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

ITA 517/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nazir Ahmad Qadri, the appellant, who contested an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Anantnag, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessment included additions for cash deposits made during the demonetization period and business income from remaining bank deposits. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A), and a subsequent appeal to the NFAC was also dismissed. The current appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed as infructuous because it was a duplicate of the earlier appeal already decided by the NFAC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713007 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 517/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nazir Ahmad Qadri Gousia Colony, Namblabal Pampore, Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: AACPQ 2101N] (Appellant) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Anantnag JAO Income Tax Officer, Ward Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : None Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 09.07.2025 28.07.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.07.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the A.O., Ward 3(4), Anantnag dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 517/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited a total amount of Rs.27.11 lacs in his bank accounts during the financial year 2016-17, out of which an amount of Rs.12.35 lacs has been deposited in cash during the demonetization period (as per details contained in page no. 2 of the assessment order). However, in absence of any response from the assessee to notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessment has been completed on the basis of informations contained in the bank statements obtained by the AO from bankers. Total income has been assessed at Rs.13,53,415/- (which includes an addition of Rs.12.35 lacs u/s 69A of the Act being the cash deposited during the demonetization period plus an amount of Rs.1.18 lacs on account of business income determined @ 8% of remaining bank deposits). 3. The matter was carried in appeal and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as follows: “3. It is noted that the appellant had filed appeal through speed post before CIT(A), Jammu on 20.01.2020 claiming that internet services were not functional in the valley and subsequently has filed the instant appeal electronically against the same assessment order on 12.10.2020 with condonation on the ground of non-availability of internet services. Therefore, these two appeals lying in the system are being dealt with together by NFAC. 4. Now, the NFAC has disposed off the appeal which filed through speed post before CIT(A) Jammu on 20.01.2020 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066654550(1) dated 12.07.2024. Since this is the duplicate appeal filed by the appellant against the same assessment order and the original appeal has been dismissed by the NFAC, the instant appeal does not survive and hence the instant appeal is being dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 517/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4. The main contention of the assessee, as it appears from the grounds in Form No. 36, are that no proper opportunity has been granted by the ld. first appellate authority and all records are not considered. 5. However, it is seen from the observations of the ld. first appellate authority that an appeal against the same assessment order dated 10.12.2019 has already been adjudicated upon earlier by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 12.07.2024 (DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066654550(1). 6. As such, this appeal against this particular appellate order dated 15.07.2024 which is before us now for adjudication, is an infructuous appeal. 7. It is seen that none has appeared on the date of hearing and no written submissions are on record. 8. As such, we dismiss this appeal as infructous. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructous. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 28.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 517/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "