OM PRAKASH GUPTA,GWALIOR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR

ITA 372/AGR/2025

AI Insights

Om Prakash Gupta appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially delayed by 391 days, but the tribunal admitted it without objection from the Department. The primary issues revolved around the alleged improper service of notices and the validity of the assessment order, which was claimed to be passed without proper jurisdiction or adherence to legal procedures. The Income Tax Officer had reopened the case based on substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period and the non-filing of income tax returns. Both the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance with multiple notices. The tribunal, considering the circumstances and the lack of proper representation for the assessee, decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838506 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV GOYAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 372/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Om Prakash Gupta Site No. 1, City Centre Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Gwalior PAN : AGSPG9180F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Gaurav Goyal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.02.2026 ORDER The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.04.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 391 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the neither the assessee or his representative appeared nor any application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 391 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in order to meet the overall justice, and admits the same as the Department has not raised any objection. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.372/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds: 1. BECAUSE in any view, the Assessing Officer never served any valid notice u/s 148 or 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee at the correct address as per records. The address used for service the notice was incomplete, lacking house number or locality, and therefore, assessment proceedings are without serving any valid notice. illegal, unsustainable and void-ab-initio and accordingly the assessment order passed is also liable to be quashed. 2. BECAUSE in any view, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is bad in law, illegal, void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction, as it fails to mention the specific section under which the proceedings were initiated whether u/s 147, 143(3), or 153 thereby making the foundation of the assessment itself vague and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 3. BECAUSE in any view, the assessment order passed by A.O. ex-parte without issuing and serving any notice U/s 143(2) to the assessee is arbitrary, illegal and against the facts of the case. 4. BECAUSE in any view, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee's income during the relevant year was below the basic exemption limit and therefore, he was not required to file a return of income u/s 139(1), and no adverse inference could be drawn merely from non-filing of return. 5. BECAUSE in any view, the impugned addition and impugned assessment order passed u/s 144 is wrong, illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, unjustified, contrary to facts and further without allowing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing and without serving the notices as per law. 6. BECAUSE in any view, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO treating the credits in the Bank account of Rs. 30,05,715/- as unexplained cash credit and cash deposit of Rs 18,38,200/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the appellant without considering the submission and documents submitted by the appellant during the appeal proceedings. 7. BECAUSE in any view, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the unsecured loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- taken by the appellant from Mr. Yash Kumar Goyal as unexplained cash credit without considering the confirmation of accounts submitted by the appellant during the appellant proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.372/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e 8. BECAUSE in any view, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the cash re-deposit of Rs. 18,38,200/- (being out of earlier cash withdrawals) as unexplained cash credit, without appreciating the facts of the case and detailed explanation submitted by the appellant during the appellant proceedings. 9. BECAUSE in any view, Ld. AO has erred in treating the saving bank interest received by the appellant of Rs. 3,512/- as unexplained money u/s 69A without allowing the deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act which is bad in law, wrong, illegal and liable for deleted. 10. BECAUSE the appellant craves leave to add or alter, any or more ground or grounds of Appeal, at the time of hearing of Appeal. 4. At the time of hearing, both the parties brought to our notice that the order passed by both the lower authorities are ex-parte. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information that the assessee had deposited huge cash during the demonitisation period and also not filed any return of income. Several notices were issued to the assesse thru eportal and not complied to any of the notices. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi. The hearing notices were sent to the assessee via eportal and the assessee sought adjournment. Several other notices were issued to the assessee for hearing, the assessee not complied to any of the hearing notices. The Ld CIT(A) proceeded to sustain the addition made by the AO based on the information available on record and he noticed from the submissions that the assessee was not served the relevant notices for hearing before the AO Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.372/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e and the income was below the taxable limit, also the sources of cash deposits were out of cash withdrawal. He rejected the same and sustained the additions. 5. Before us, the assessee is in appeal and it is fact on record that the assessee never had any opportunity to represent his case, the reason given before us that the assessee was settled in Madhya Pradesh and could not receive any notice which are sent through the eportal. Prayed that this issue may be remitted to the file of AO and Ld DR has no objections to give one more opportunity to the assessee. In my considered view, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the case is remitted to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to redo the assessment after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee also directed to file the relevant information as called for without taking unnecessary adjournments. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026 Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.372/Agr/2025 5 | P a g e Dated:19.02.2026 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "