" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, U.P. ITAT-Lucknow Page 1 of 8 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.: 590 & 591/LKW/2026 For Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rajesh Kumar C/o. Pradum Traders, Khajurahat, Bikapur, Faizabad (UP) PAN : BKHPK5738F . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer/NFeAC, Ward- 1, Faizabad. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Shailendra Mishra [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr Atesham Ansari & Smt. Pratibha Singh [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 23/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24/07/2026 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; Of the twin appeals filed by the assessee the appeal in ITA No. 591/LKW/2026 is directed against the order dt. 17/04/2026 passed in quantum proceedings, whereas appeal in ITA No. 590/LKW/2026 challenges the even dated order passed in penalty proceedings by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] for assessment year 2019-20 [‘AY’] Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 2. Tersely stated common facts of the case are that; the assessee individual was identified as non-filer. Upon receipt of information from inside IT module that, during the year under consideration assessee deposited huge cash of ₹21,96,23,600/- into his Bank of Baroda account and was in receipt of interest income of ₹16,274/-, the case after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from competent authority was vide notice dt. 19/03/2023 issued u/s 148 of the Act reopened. When assessee failed to make a return in terms of notice, further notices dt. 13/10/2023 & 01/11/2023 u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued which also remained unattained. In the event, invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act, the Ld. AO culminated the assessment proceedings ex-parte and assessed income to the best of his judgement by holding a cash deposit of ₹11,13,95,021/- as ‘unexplained money’ u/s 69A of the Act for assessee’s failure to establish nature & source thereof, along-with untaxed interest income of ₹16,274/- earned and framed the assessment accordingly u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 3 of 8 3. Consequent to former assessment, the Ld. AO vide notice dt. 28/02/2024 initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act. Vide show cause notice [‘SCN’] dt. 05/04/2024 the assessee was put to a show cause to explain as to why penalty in terms of section 271AAC should not be levied for income brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act. Both the notices remained un-responded effectively. Considering the assessee submission in response to letter dt. 24/04/2024, the Ld. AO advanced the proceedings and by an order dt. 20/08/2024 framed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹86,88,811/- an amount equal to 10% of tax payable by the assessee as arrived u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment order and order of penalty, the assessee instituted two separate appeals thereagainst before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act. The said appeals came to be dismissed by the Ld. NFAC in limine as time barred. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 4 of 8 5. Aggrieved by the impugned dismissals of twin first appeals, the assessee set in motion present twin appeals separately on various grounds including delay. 6. Since the facts and issue of dismissal of both the first appeals in limine by the Ld. NFAC assailed in this bunch of appeals being similar & identical, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 7. Without touching the grounds of appeals, we have heard the rival parties on the limited issue of dismissal of appeals in limine as time barred and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused relevant material concerning the delay in instituting the first appeals u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. NFAC and considered the facts of the case in the light of settled position of law which were forewarned to the respective parties. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 5 of 8 8. We note that, the order of assessment & penalty in this case was respectively passed on 28/02/2024 and 20/08/2024. There is no dispute between rival parties about the communication & receipt of these orders on the same date when they passed respectively. Two separate appeals thereagainst u/s 246A of the Act were however filed before the Ld. NFAC on 16/10/2025. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said appeals in limine on the ground that appeals were time barred by 564 days. While dismissing both the appeals on the ground of limitation, the Ld. NFAC issued a solitary notice in both the cases dt. 18/03/2026 thus calling upon the assessee to explain the sufficient cause/reasons behind the delay in instituting the appeals by 25/03/2026. The said notice was neither responded nor replied by the appellant. In the event the Ld. NFAC advanced the proceeding ex-parte on the basis of material available on record including condonation petition & supported affidavit of the assessee and culminated the adjudication by dismissal in limine on the law of limitation. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 6 of 8 9. Admittedly the appellant had no effective opportunity to explain the circumstances which prevented him from filing of first appeals within the time limit allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act. The stand alone hearing granted vide notice dt. 18/03/2026 could not even otherwise be construed as fair opportunity as it failed to allow the appellant a reasonable period to respond. Therefore the twin adjudication of the Ld. NFAC in our prima-facie considered view not in accordance with law and we say so by placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ [1999, 8 SCC 266 (SC)]. 10. In the present appeals it is also noted that, in the course of first appellate proceedings, the Ld. NFAC provided much less reasonable opportunities to the appellant in each of these cases and we say so because of clinching facts that; (i) for both appeals, appellant was called upon on very same day and (ii) only a common dated notice of hearing was issued (for both Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 7 of 8 appeals) and (iii) the notice accorded less than a reasonable period of fifteen days to comply therewith. 11. It shall be worthy to underline here that, the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, there should not be a paper opportunity. In this context of reasonable period to be granted as opportunity, the judgement of Hon’ble High court of Patna in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’ apt for reference, wherein it was categorically held by their Hon’ble lordships that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate claims made by the assessee. Placing reliance thereon (supra), the impugned orders in our considered view deserves to be set-aside for de- novo consideration of grounds of delay for lack of effective hearing opportunity to the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com Rajesh Kumar ITA Nso. 590 & 591/LKW/2026 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Lucknow Page 8 of 8 12. In the light of afforested discussion and reasons, we deem it fit in the larger interest of justice to accept the prayer of the appellant for grant of an opportunity to effectively advance the evidence and explain the sufficient cause/reasons behind the delay in instituting the appeals u/s 246A of the Act and consequent set-aside both the impugned orders for their remand to the file of Ld. NFAC at the stage of their institution with a twofold directions to (a) decide admission of appeals after considering explanation in accordance with law and if admitted (b) adjudicate the issues raised in Form No 35 on merits in accordance with applicable law. 13. In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms. U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned herein above. Sd/- Sd/- KUL BHARAT G. D. PADMAHSHALI VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Lucknow, dt: 24/07/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथê / The Applicant 2. ÿÂयथê / The Respondent. 3. The CIT-(A)/NFAC Concerned. 4. The Pr.CIT, Lucknow 5. DR, ITAT, B-Bench, Lucknow 6. गाडªफ़ाइल / Guard File. By Order Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Lucknow. Printed from counselvise.com "