RAVINDER MANOJKUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

ITA 647/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ravinder Manojkumar Gupta against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) which dismissed his appeal for non-compliance. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer added Rs.8,75,000 to Gupta's income, citing unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Gupta argued that the cash was withdrawn for medical emergencies and was part of legal tender during demonetization. The Tribunal found that the Addl/JCIT(A) erred by not considering the merits of the case and not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee during the assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31939 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR RAJWANSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.647/LKW/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ravinder Manojkumar Gupta 12, Draupadi Vihar, Laxmanpuri, Lucknow-226001. v. Income Tax Officer Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AEGPG4343C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 11 2024 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter, “the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.8,75,000/- without appreciating: That the amounts withdrawn by assessee who is diabetic with high blood pressure and obesity due to medical conditions consequential withdrawal of cash in person were kept for emergencies pertaining to medical attention for herself and her family. That assessee had to deposit the cash due to demonetization that too partially i.e. notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1,000 as they were no longer considered as legal tender. ITA No.647/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 That the amount withdrawn during the year nearly the amount re- deposited and sufficient to fulfill household and other expenses. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in assuming that cash withdrawals from bank have been used against domestic expenses ignoring income from disclosed sources assessed as such Rs.5,03,030/-. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing order u/s 250 of the IT Act without affording adequate opportunity to represent the assessee and passing the said order in haste which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition despite unequivocal evidence and documents furnished by the assessee as and when sought by the Ld. AO at the time of assessment. 5. That Section 69A was wrongly invoked in as much as deposit in bank does not mean income as defined under Income tax Act.” (2) In this case, assessment order dated 16/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.13,95,669/- (Rounded off to Rs.13,95,670/-), as against the returned income of Rs.5,03,030/- declared by the assessee. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.8,75,000/- was made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited in the bank account. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid addition was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 30.08.2024. (2.1) At the time of hearing, there was no representation from the side of the appellant assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard. On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 30/08/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution, taking adverse view of non-compliance with notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has statutory duty, prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Act to ITA No.647/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 4 pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, whether or not there was any representation from the assessee’s side. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the assessee’s appeal, is required to be in writing, and the order is further required to contain the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decisions. Thus, it is the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits of the case. It can be readily inferred that dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine, for want of prosecution, without going into the merits of the case was erroneous on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) having regard to provisions contained under section 250(6) of the Act. Further, on perusal of records, it is found that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. When the facts of the case were discussed with the Ld. Departmental Representative, he was of the opinion, at the time of hearing that the issues in dispute may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo order on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, and as Departmental Representative for Revenue is in agreement with this, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case; the impugned order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), dated 30/08/2024 is hereby set aside, and the disputes in the assessment order are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. ITA No.647/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 4 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/03/2025. Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 03/03/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar "