Ravi Kant Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, both dated 19.01.2026 arising out of assessment orders both dated 28.03.2022 and 26.03.2023 passed under section u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

Since, both the appeals are of the same assessee therefore the same were heard together and for the purposes of convenience are being adjudicated by this common order. For the purposes of this order, we will take facts and figures for AY 2014-15 pertaining to ITA No.3611/Del/2026 and treat the same as lead year. Since, facts for 2017-18 per ITA No.3612/Del/2026 is identical, decision taken in AY 2014-15 pertaining to ITA No.3611/Del/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis to aforesaid appeal also.

The assessee was called absent.

The ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case submitting that the appellant had filed his Return of Income for AY 2014-15 u/s 139 of the Act for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.7,88,720/-. A Search and Seizure action u/s 132 of Act was conducted on Shri Atul Tyagi and other concerns on 09.12.2016 by Investigation Wing, Gurugram. It was found that Shri Atul Tyagi deposited a huge amount of Old/Demonetized currency (SBN) during the period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. During the course of Survey/Search proceedings the bank accounts of Shri Atul Tyagi analyzed and it was revealed that Shri Atul Tyagi had deposited Rs.229 Crores in various bank accounts during demonetization period. He also accepted on oath that he had been working as entry provider and he used his various bank accounts for this purpose. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated after taking the approval of the competent authority and notice u/s 148 of the Act had been issued on 28.03.2021 by the AO. The appellant did not file return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act due to which statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act could not be issued to the appellant. The AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of Rs.4,03,200/- while observing in para-4 of his order the non-compliance of the assessee to satisfactorily explained the loan transactions. Thereafter, assessment was completed at an income of Rs.11,91,920/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The assessee contested the addition before ld. CIT(A) who also observed failure of the assessee in defending the impugned addition through any cogent documentary evidence either during the assessment proceedings or the appellate proceedings.

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

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We have noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is indeed based upon non-compliance by the assessee to produce any document to defend its case. We have also noted that the Ld. AO has also drawn his conclusions in view of reported deficient compliance by the assessee. We have also noted that the lower authorities have primarily based their conclusions upon the reports and status of proceedings made by the Investigation Wing Officers. There is no indication of any independent enquiry done by the ld. Assessing Officer. We are however conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matters deserve to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the orders 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. Assessing Officer. 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 possesses 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.

As the facts for AY 2017-18 in ITA No.3612/Del/2026 are identical, the decision taken in ITA No.3611/Del/2026 for AY 2014-15 shall apply mutatis mutandis as well.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No.3611/Del/2026, ITA and No.3612/Del/2026 for Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes.