ANKITA CHIRAG JAIN ,ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23 1 6 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4874/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2025AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to submit requisite reply and documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be more vigilant in the future and ensure compliance before the AO without fail. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission of an affidavit explaining the non-compliance due to family disputes and the counsel's failure to make requisite compliance. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of having a strong case on merits. The addition of Rs.56,60,000/- was not decided on merits but was subject to fresh adjudication by the AO. The issue of whether the addition was bad in law was therefore left undecided at this stage.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ankita Chirag Jain, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 06.06.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23. The assessee had initially declared an income of Rs.10,24,460/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated scrutiny proceedings based on information from the Insight portal indicating undisclosed loans of Rs.56,60,000/-. Despite several notices, the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s 144B, adding Rs.56,60,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed due to non-compliance and lack of documentary evidence. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.56,60,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 was bad in law and liable to be deleted, considering the assessee's contention that it did not represent her income and she had correctly disclosed her income of Rs.10,24,460/-. The assessee argued that the addition was bad in law and should be deleted. The revenue did not record any specific argument on this point in the judgment, but opposed the assessee's request for an opportunity to represent her case. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted one last opportunity to represent her case and file evidence/submissions before the lower authorities, given the circumstances preventing proper representation. The assessee contended that non-compliance was due to family disputes and sought an opportunity to present her case on merits, citing bonafide reasons. The revenue opposed this, highlighting the assessee's persistent non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SMT.RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Sarda, Shri Surendra Mohan- Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 31.10.2025

Date of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 06.06.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

“1) The Appellant expresses deep and unconditional regret at not being able to make proper representation before the lower authorities which was due to reasons beyond the control of the Appellant. The Appellant requests that one last opportunity may kindly be given to her to represent her case and file evidence/submissions.

2) The CIT (A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that the addition of Rs. 56,60,000/- was bad in law. The amount of Rs. 56,60,000/- did not represent the income of the Appellant and that the Appellant had correctly disclosed her income of Rs. 10,24,460/- in the return of income. Hence, the addition of Rs. 56,60,000/-is liable to be deleted.

The Appellant states that the above Grounds of Appeal are in addition to, in the alternative and without prejudice to each other and further craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any Grounds of Appeal.”

3.

The brief fact of the case are that the assessee had filed her original return for A.Y. 2022-23 declaring income of Rs. 10,24,460/- on 28.07.2022. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. As per the information available on the Insight portal of the department, the assessee had advanced loans of Rs. 56,60,000/- during the year which had not been disclosed in her return. Several notices were issued to the assessee by ld. AO but no response was made by her.

In the absence of any reply by the assessee to the show cause-notice proposing to treat the said amount of Rs. 56,60,000/-, ld. AO completed the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s 144B after adding Rs. 56,60,000/- u/s. 69 as unexplained investment.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

However no reply or documentary evidence was filed in response to the notices issued by ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee appeal was dismissed. Further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the outset, ld. AR has filed an affidavit by the assessee stating that compliance could not be made before the lower authorities due to family disputes on account of which her counsel, Mr. Dhruv Jain, a cousin of her husband, did not make requisite compliance nor informed her about the proceedings in time to enable her to attend to the notices issued by ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).

It has been submitted by ld. AR that the assessee has a strong case on merits and, therefore, requested for grant of one more opportunity to make requisite compliance, considering that the delay was due to bonafide reasons as explained in the assessee’s affidavit.

Ld. DR, on the other hand, has pointed out the persistent no n- compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as before the ld. CIT(A) due to which he has opposed the ld. AR’s proposition.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. In the interest of justice, we hereby grant the assessee one more opportunity to submit requisite reply and documentary evidences and, for the purpose, restore the matter to the ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and make requisite compliance before the ld. AO without fail.

6.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 31.10.2025

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →