SUNHARI LAL YADAV,KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(4), KANPUR

ITA 247/LKW/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sunhari Lal Yadav against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld an ex-parte assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment for the year 2017-18 included significant additions to the assessee's income, which the assessee contested, claiming lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and that the additions were based on incorrect facts regarding the ownership of a bank account. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments about the denial of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781607 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE EXPRESSED; R.R.N. SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMRAT CHANDRA; C.A
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.247/LKW/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunhari Lal Yadav 5, Meerpur Cantt, Meerpur, Pin-208001. v. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4) Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. TAN/PAN:ABEPY8185F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. DR O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.01.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. That the L.D CIT Appeal have upheld the assessment order which was passed under section 144 of the Act, on the grounds that multiple opportunities were allowed by the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. The L.D CIT Appeals failed to consider that the notices though issued by the A.O were never received by the appellant and therefore the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. That the order of the L.D CIT Appeals, upholding the assessment order passed under section 144 of Act, on the ground that multiple opportunities were allowed by the A.O is BAD IN LAW and liable to be quashed. The Principals of Natural Justice have been violated. 3. The L.D CIT Appeals failed to consider that the notices issued during the assessment proceedings never came to the knowledge of the appellant and therefore no compliance to the notices issued could be made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. The appellant was therefore prevented by a sufficient and reasonable Cause from furnishing the evidences before the L.D A.O. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.247/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 4 4. That the addition of Rs 49,12,500.00 pertaining to alleged “cash deposit” have been upheld in the case of the appellant without Considering the fact that the “Bank Account” itself in which the alleged cash is deposited, does not pertain to the appellant. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 49,12,500/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Act, without properly appreciating the appellant’s submission that the Said bank account does not pertain to the appellant and is in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi, with PAN: AFWPD8903Q That the appellant Submitted the “Certificate” from the “State Bank of India” stating that the Bank Account is not in the name of the appellant which has been rejected by the L.D CIT Appeals on the grounds of allowability Of additional evidences. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the evidences submitted by the appellant, without considering that the evidences submitted were Crucial to prove the ownership of the bank account and were not Previously submitted due to the assessment order being ex-party assessment under section 144 of the Act and owing to the reason that the appellant was un-aware of the ongoing assessment proceedings in its case as the notices were never received by the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs.2,63,100/- on account of agricultural income ignoring the fact that the agricultural income is exempt under the Act. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs. 1,17,265/without appreciating that the deductions were legally allowable and duly claimed in the return. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the fact that the original assessment was framed under section 144 of the ACT and the evidence submitted by the appellant were essential for deciding the appeal on merits, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity for complete justice. 10. That the entire assessment proceedings under section 144 and the appellate order are arbitrary, illegal, and void ab initio for lack of proper service of notices and denial of reasonable Opportunity to be heard. 11, That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case assessment order dated 24.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.55,52,555/- (rounded off to Rs.55,52,550/-) as against the returned income of Rs.2,59,690/-. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte qua the assessee. Vide impugned Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.247/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 4 appellate order dated 29.01.2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The order of learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. (B.1) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), both passed their respective orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to aforesaid submissions and contentions of learned Counsel for the assessee. He left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the foregoing and after hearing the representatives of both sides, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order, are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (C) In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2025 Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/09/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.247/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard file By order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "