Sachidanand Rai vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee deposited Rs.12,46,000/- during the demonetization period in his bank accounts maintained with the Canara Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The Assessing Officer added back the entire amount deposited in the said bank account during the entire financial year, of Rs. 16,41,000/- to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, he found that the assessee had also received credit deposits through cheques and RTGS in the said account during the financial year 2016-17, of Rs.54,91,837/-. Since, the assessee had not responded to any of his notices, he also added back this sum of Rs.54,91,837/- under section 68, assessed the income at Rs.71,32,837/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee filed an appeal with the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC, observed that he had provided nine opportunities to the assessee to submit his version and also given video conference notices, but only adjournments have been sought and no replies have been filed. Therefore, he decided to dispose of the appeal ex parte based on the material on record. He called for a remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer which was received on 16.10.2023. Observing that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, he pointed out that the essential ingredients of both sections 68 and 69 were that the burden of proof with regard to the source of cr…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and law while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing sufficient opportunity to have it say on issues involved in the appeal.
• 2. Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred on facts and law while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing the opportunity of VC (with VC link) as per provision of law and guidelines laid down by Board and also against the various judgments of Hon'ble Courts.
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law while confirming the assessment order without considering the remand report submitted by ld. AO as well as counter comments submitted by Appellant.
• 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law while passing the order while confirming the addition of Rs. 16,41,000/- and Rs. 54,91,837/- without discussing the case on merits and confirm the addition only assumptions.
• 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law while passing the order u/s 250 is against the peculiar facts of the case, related law and also against the law of natural justice liable to be quashed or set-aside.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Suneel Kumar Gupta vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Co-operative Cane Development Union Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Sitapur

  Lucknow bench

• Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Inter College vs. Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Ayub Khan Vs. The ITO

  Jodhpur bench

• Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Raiganj

  Kolkata ‘D’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2013-14Partly Allowed

• Rattan Jodharam Harchwani v/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed