PRITHIVI INFRA BUILD PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW V. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITSSA 759/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Prithvi Infra Build Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-3, for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary issue arose from a search and seizure operation that uncovered documents related to a lease agreement between the assessee and UPSIDC, which included a payment of Rs.76,055.30 that was not reflected in the assessee's accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount to the assessee's income under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the unexplained source of the payment. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-examination, considering the assessee's inadvertent omission in the initial proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471432 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANU CHAURASIA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 271(1)(c); 32; 69B; 153C; 133A

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 IT(SS)A No.759/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prithvi Infra Build Pvt. Ltd CP_4, Vijyant Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow v. DCIT/ACIT (Central)-2 Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAECP8300P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Mahendra Kumar, FCA Respondent by: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 12 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 the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company was engaged in the business of developing of immovable properties and as a builder/contractor. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 22.09.2015, declaring NIL income and current year loss at 20,678/-. IT(SS)A No.759/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 6 2.2 A search and seizure operation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) was carried out on the Chakradhar Group of cases on 17.01.2019 and several commercial and residential premises of the assessee group were covered under this operation. Simultaneously, survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act were also carried out at many premises belonging to the assessee group and its business associates, during which substantial number of documents in the form of loose papers, registers and computer hard disk etc., were seized/impounded. Subsequently, the case was centralized with the office of DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Lucknow. After examination and verification of the documents seized during the search, several documents in the name of the assessee company were found. Accordingly, after recording satisfaction, a notice dated 10.02.2021 under section 153C of the Act, requiring the assessee file return of income for the relevant year was issued. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 17.02.2021, declaring NIL income. From the perusal of the impounded documents, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that that a lease deed was executed between the assessee-company (through the Director Dr. Ashwani Singh) and UPSIDC, Lucknow on 24.05.2014 for lease of land at Plot No. D-44, situated at Industrial Area, Sandila Phase-II, Village Raiso, Sandila, Hardoi. IT(SS)A No.759/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 6 The possession of this leased land was also handed over by UPSIDC, vide their letter dated 02.06.2014. From the lease deed, the AO also noticed that a provisional premium payment of Rs.76,055.30 had been made to UPSIDC. However, in the accounts furnished by the assessee, no such payments were reflected. Therefore, the AO required the assessee to explain the source of the payment of Rs.76,055.30 made to UPSIDC and also explain as to how the same has been accounted for in its books of accounts. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that the initial payment of Rs.76,055.30 for leased assets situated at Sandila Phase-II, Plot No. 44 had been made through individual's (Director’s) accounts. Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee, and since the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the AO made addition of Rs.76,055/- under section 69B of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 153C/143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.55,377/- after setting off the loss declared by the assessee of Rs.20,678/-. 2.3 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. IT(SS)A No.759/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 6 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. First Appellate Authority confirmed the addition of Rs.76,055/- (Rs.76,055.30) made by the AO under section 59B of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the LD. CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1.Because the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), Lucknow-3 is contrary to law facts and circumstances of the case and without providing proper opportunity of being heard. The appellate order is liable to be set-aside. 2. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal while confirming the addition of Rs.76,055.30 u/s 69B of the Act made by the Assessing Officer in respect of payment of premium Rs.76,055.30 to UPSIDC against lease of land in favor of the appellant without considering the investment made by the Director of the Company as claimed during the Assessment Proceedings. The addition of Rs.76,055/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Any other ground raised at the time of hearing of the appeal in accordance with the law. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the captioned appeal was one out of seven appeals of the IT(SS)A No.759/LKW/2024 Page 5 of 6 assessee filed before the ld. CIT(A) and that this appeal was dismissed ex parte due to some inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee. He further submitted that out of seven appeals, six appeals were still pending before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. The Ld. A.R. furnished before us a chart containing the details of six appeals pending before the ld. CIT(A), which is being reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference: Against Quantum: SL Appeal No. AY 1 CIT(A), Lucknow-3/10823/2016-17 2017-18 2 CIT(A), Lucknow-3/10248/2017-18 2018-19 3 CIT(A), Lucknow-3/10612/2018-19 2019-20 Against Penalty: SL Appeal No. AY 1 CIT(A), Lucknow-3/10103/2015-16 2016-17 2 CIT(A), Lucknow-3/10315/2017-18 2018-19 3 CIT(A), Lucknow-3/10710/2018-19 2019-20 6. The Ld. A.R. prayed that this appeal of the assessee may also be restored to the office of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same along with other appeals pending before the ld. CIT(A). 7. The Ld. CIT(DR) had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the ld. CIT(A), as requested by the Ld. A.R. IT(SS)A No.759/LKW/2024 Page 6 of 6 8. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. As requested by the Ld. A.R. and no objection by the Ld. CIT(DR), we restore this file to the Office of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to hear the appeal of the assessee on merits after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. We also caution the Assessee to fully comply with the directions and notices of the ld. CIT(A) in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the ld. CIT(A) 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. 9. 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(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar "