SURENDRA SINGH,LUCKNOW V. DCIT / ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

ITA 416/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Surendra Singh, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which the appellant argued was not permissible as the investments were made in the previous year. The Assessing Officer had initially made an addition of Rs. 2,49,44,275 as unexplained investment, which was partially accepted to Rs. 50 lakhs. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the absence of representation for the appellant and the non-speaking nature of the CIT(A)'s order, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779817 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R.N. SHUKLA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.416/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.416/Lkw/2025 Assessment year:2017-18 Surendra Singh 617/1604, DIGDIGA, Opp. 1/736, Vishal Khand-1, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 PAN:AWAPS8879H Vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.416/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 05/12/2023 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058474155(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. Grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That since entire investment in assets and liabilities, as shown in opening capital amounting to Rs.2,99,44,275/- was made OR incurred in the year prior to a.y.2017-18, hence no addition under section 69 of the Act is permissible in a.y. 2017-18, accordingly, addition made by Learned. AO as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is illegal, against the provisions of the Act and without jurisdiction. Appellant by None Respondent by Shri R.R.N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.416/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 2. That Ld. AO arbitrarily accepted opening capital to the extent of Rs.50 lacs out of total opening capital of Rs.2,99,44,275/-. He failed to come out the reason and basis of assuming the opening capital amounting to Rs.2,49,44,275/- invested in the year under appeal, accordingly, addition made by Ld. AO as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is against the law of natural justice, illegal and without jurisdiction.” (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 28/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.28,58,280/-. Assessment order dated 22/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.2,78,02,555/- (rounded off to Rs.2,78,02,550/-). In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.2,49,44,275/- was made under section 69 of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 05/12/2023, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) for non prosecution. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C) At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In absence any representation from assessee’s side, learned Departmental Representative was heard and materials available on record were perused. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee and the order passed by learned CIT(A) is non speaking order. In response to a query from Bench, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue submitted that the issue in dispute may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.416/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute are restored back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to pass de novo speaking order on merits of the case in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUBHASH MALGURIA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:15/10/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Printed from counselvise.com "