Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2025:CGHC:55825-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 209 of 2025

1 - Mahendra Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Vishvanath Yadav Aged About 58 Years Pan- Aebpy7047q R/o Principal Saraswati Shishu Mandir Dipadihkalan Balrampur, Surguja (C.G.) 497118 ... Appellant versus

1 - Income Tax Officer-1 Ambikapur Kharsiya Road Bhagwanpur, Ambikapur 497001 ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Shalaj Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate (Division Bench)

(Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Order on Board

Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

17/11/2025

1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, upholding the decision of the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals), is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. The appellant challenges the validity of the reassessment order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as other legal grounds raised in the appeal.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the appellant, on 19.12.2019, received the Income Tax Assessment Order for the assessment year 2017-18, passed by the Income Tax Assessing Officer-1, Ambikapur, under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order was issued ex-parte, without prior notice or an opportunity for hearing, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant, on the following day, 20.12.2019, received a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from the same Assessing Officer, calling upon the appellant to respond to the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant found that he had received the assessment order first and only then the notice to appear for the assessment proceedings, which is contrary to the prescribed legal procedure. According to the assessment order, during the demonetization period of the financial year 2016-17, the appellant was alleged to have deposited Rs. 42,45,201/- in cash with Chhattisgarh State Rural Bank, Ambikapur, but no income tax return had been filed by the appellant for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 142(1), which the appellant only received after the assessment order was passed. The assessment order also stated that the appellant had deposited large sums of cash during the demonetization period, which was scrutinized in the order. The Income Tax Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, determining the total income of the appellant as Rs. 3,899,360/-, and raised a tax demand of Rs. 4,879,820, including interest, as per the calculation sheet attached to the order. However, upon reviewing the assessment order, the appellant contacted Chhattisgarh State Rural Bank, Dipadih, to verify the bank account numbers mentioned in the assessment order. Certified copies obtained from the bank revealed that the bank accounts listed in the assessment order did not belong to the appellant. Specifically, account number 7002594581 belonged to Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Dipadih Kalan, and account number 7002139589 belonged to Krishna Kumar Gupta. Despite the absence of any bank accounts in the name of appellant, the assessment order falsely attributed deposits to him. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the ex-parte assessment order under Section 144. In the appeal, the appellant presented his case, arguing that the assessment was made without any opportunity for hearing and that the bank accounts mentioned in the assessment order were not his. The appellant also submitted certified evidence from the bank and po