Dhanesh Kumar Sharma vs ITO Ward 2(3)(4)

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate order sdated 13.04.2026 and 26.04.2026 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 30.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015- 16 and 2016-17, respectively. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.4572/Del/2026, for Assessment Year 2014-15 are as under:-

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.4615/Del/2026, for AY 2015-16:-

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.4616/Del/2026 for Assessment Year 2016-17:-

All the above three appeals of the appellant are containing common issues and facts and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. For the purposes of this order and for consideration of facts and figures, we will take AY 2014-15 as the lead year. Considering commonality of facts, decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to pending appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17.

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that the assessee had filed Return of Income on 01.03.2016 declaring income of Rs.3,00,890/-. The ld. Assessing Officer was in receipt of information from Investigation Unit of Ghaziabad that the assessee, his wife, daughter and his minor son were maintaining undisclosed bank accounts with Syndicate Bank, HDFC Bank, Dena Bank, etc. in which cash deposits were made on which no tax was offered. The ld. Assessing Officer conducted his enquiries and concluded that the justifications qua sources of cash deposits, including declaration in IDS Scheme, coming from the assessee were far from satisfactory. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition of Rs.95,66,770/-. The ld. Assessing Officer also, in para-5 of his order held assessee guilty of filing deficient evidences as well as giving evasive and superficial replies. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) while producing additional evidences. The ld. CIT(A) requisitioned a remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer and after considering the facts of the case, remand report and evidences on record deleted addition to the extent of Rs.45 lakhs relatable to assessee’s earlier disclosure in IDS Scheme and confirmed the balance amount of Rs.50,66,770/-. The ld. CIT(A) had also subjected his relief to the final verification by the ld. Assessing Officer of the amount of Rs.45 lakhs from old records.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has moved an application under Rule-29 of Income Tax Rules for admission of additional evidences in respect of agriculture land holdings, sale/purchase bills indicating agricultural activities, lease agreements. The appellant assessee has argued that the impugned land holdings and income thereof has bearing on the financial transactions of the assessee relatable to filing of income. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer has not raised any queries and hence the same were not filed. The ld. Counsel has argued that the impugned evidences have a direct bearing on facts of the case and that the appellant may be allowed to file the same. It was also argued that the appellant was not provided an opportunity of being heard through VC. Ld. Counsel has also vehemently argued that it was not allowed an opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) to have given a rejoinder to the Assessing Officer’s remand report. The ld. Counsel also vehemently argued that it was not allowed sufficient time by the ld. Assessing Officer to file evidences in support of cash deposits. The ld. Counsel also submitted that in his case, on similar facts, assessment has been concluded for AY 2013-14 and no addition waws made. It was accordingly requested that the matter may kindly be considered for remission back to the ld. Assessing Officer.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities.

We have noted from the assessment order that the impugned order has been passed without any extensive marshaling of facts and evidences. The addition of Rs.95,66,770/- has been made as unexplained deposits noted in the bank accounts of appellant’s daughter, wife and minor son, without any break up. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer has not evenly demonstrated as to how much amounts pertains to which family members. We have also noted that the ld. Assessing Officer has made additions referring to the amounts in bank account of assessee’s wife, though admittedly she is an independent tax payer filing her Return of Income. It is not comprehended as to how unexplained amounts of a different tax payer could have been added in assessee’s hands even if such taxpayer was assessee’s wife. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer has passed a non-speaking order. Further, we have noted that the ld. Assessing Officer has merely reproduced the information of withdrawal and deposits in respective bank accounts and has not conducted any independent enquiries before drawing adverse conclusions against the assessee.

We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) has placed his relief majorily upon remand report of the Assessing Officer submitted during appellate proceedings. There is nothing on records to suggest that the appellant was given opportunity to give his views qua the remand report by way of a rejoinder submission. The order of ld. CIT(A) therefore also suffers from mischief of violating assessee’s right to natural justice and a non-speaking order.

As regards, the additional evidences filed under Rule-29, we have noted that Hon’ble Courts are unanimous that documents produced as additional evidences under Rule-29 of the Tribunal Rules, by an appellant, deserve to be leniently considered for admission if they have any direct connection with the controversy. Thus, Rule-29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, postulates as under:-

In the instant case, the assessee has argued that the cash deposits in his bank account are related to his agricultural income. We have noted that the ld. Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) had not requisitioned any such evidences from the assessee. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidences filed by the appellant. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee filed vide ITA No.4572/Del/2026 for AY 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Since, the facts of the case for assessee’s appeal in ITA No.4615 and 4616/Del/2026 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively are identical to those in ITA No.4572/Del/2026 for AY 2014-15, the decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, assessee’s appeal in ITA No.4615 and 4616/Del/2026 for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively are allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.