INCOME TAX OFFICER, KISHANGARH vs. LALITA AGARWAL, KISHENGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “A” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 387/JPR/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Income Tax Officer Lalita Agarwal Kishangarh H.No. 4, Dev Dungari (Appellant) Vs Road, Vidhya Sagar Colony, Mandanganj, Kishangarh. PAN: ADXPA9887D (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Sh. Sunil Porwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.) Revenue Represented: Sh. Ananad Swaroop, CIT Date of hearing : 11-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 20-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Alita Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2022-23 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “Ground1. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 89,77,290 made u/s

I.T.A No. 387/JPR/2026 Page No 2 Lalita Agarwal

69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 3,95,899 by applying a gross profit rate of 4.41 percentage without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on account of unexplained money based on incriminating material seized during search and corroborative confirmation obtained u/s 133(6) of the Act.

Ground2. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in converting the addition made u/s 69A into an estimation of profit by applying GP rate of 4.41 percentage without rejecting the findings of the Assessing officer regarding cash payments and without recording any finding that the seized material was false OR unreliable.

Ground3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in substituting a legally sustainable addition U/s 69A of the Act with an estimated addition on presumed unaccounted sales, though neither the assessee nor the Assessing officer had taken a plea of suppressed sales, thereby exceeding appellate jurisdiction.

Ground4. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition was based merely on loose paper and was not corroborated, ignoring that the incriminating document was seized during a search action u/s 132 in the case of BABA Group, the key person of the searched group admitted receipt of cash in lieu of inflated purchases, the transaction was party specific and amount specific, and, the seized material was further reinforced by reply to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act.

Ground5. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were rightly invoked, as the assessee was found to have made unaccounted cash payments not recorded in her book of account and absence of cash balance in book of accounts itself established that the money was unexplained.

Ground 6. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in granting relief on the ground that the cross-verification recording was not provided, without appreciating that cross-verification opportunity was in fact granted & availed, and no prejudice was demonstrated by the assessee.

Ground 7. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 85,81,391/- out of total addition without any independent inquiry, without calling for remand report findings on seized material analysis, and without rebutting the Assessing

I.T.A No. 387/JPR/2026 Page No 3 Lalita Agarwal

Officer's reasoning based on human probabilities and surrounding circumstances.”

I.T.A No. 387/JPR/2026 Page No 4 Lalita Agarwal

I.T.A No. 387/JPR/2026 Page No 5 Lalita Agarwal

by applying GP rate of 4.41% without entering into the merits of this case. At the same time, Ld. AR for the assessee also contended that despite repeated request the assessee has not been provided with cross verification of the fact by the Assessing Officer. 8. We are of the considered view that without providing opportunity of “cross verification” to the assessee, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed to frame the assessment merely on the basis of statements recorded during the search and seizure operation. At the same time, assessee has also contended that the entire payment of Baba Group has been made by the assessee through banking channel and some of the payment is still pending to be made. 9. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that neither at the stage of assessment proceedings nor at the first appellate proceedings stage proper appreciation of facts have been made nor the assessee has been provided opportunity of cross verification of the facts on the basis of which addition has been made. So in view of the matter we deem it fit to send the case

I.T.A No. 387/JPR/2026 Page No 6 Lalita Agarwal

back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decided afresh after providing cross verification to the assessee and by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 20/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar