Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SMT.RENU JAUHRI
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 31.10.2025