SHALINEE SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3 (3), MAU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 15/VNS/2025Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi20 August 2026AY 2017-20186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case and produce relevant documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case based on information about significant cash deposits. Despite notices, the assessee did not respond, leading the AO to treat the deposits as unexplained income.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the assessee's failure to respond to notices, the AO's ex-parte assessment, and the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal due to delay without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 271F,Section 115BBE,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH (SMC), VARANASI BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.15/VNS/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shalinee Singh v. The ITO 3(3) 402, Panchsheel Wellinghton Mau Tower 4, Crossing Republic Chipiyana, Ghaziabad (U.P) TAN/PAN:FGAPS2790Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Anish Singh, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Deepak Yadav, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.11.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.28,71,160/- in her Bank Account No.0180002100110082 maintained with Punjab National Bank, G.R. Road Branch, Ghaziabad, U.P. during the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act’) after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee. However, in

ITA No.15/VNS/2025 Page 2 of 6

response to notice under section 148 of the Act, there was no response from the side of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. However, there was still no response from the side of the assessee. The AO, subsequently, issued a show cause notice along with draft assessment order to the assessee for completion of assessment under section 144 of the Act, vide which assessee was required to furnish the details of source of cash deposits. Since again there was no response from the side of the assessee, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.28,71,160/- as unexplained deposits of the assessee from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee ate Rs.28,71,160/-.

2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC(1), 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act, separately.

2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 738 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.

ITA No.15/VNS/2025 Page 3 of 6

2.3 Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld. Appellant Authority erred in law by not considering the fact that the notices and Assessment order was received by the appellant very late and due to which appeal was filed late. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law by not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed the impugned order. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer failed to serve notice to the assessee. 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer failed to gather complete information from the bank about transaction incurred by the assessee. He also failed to enquiry the material facts of the case. 5. The Appellant is engaged in business and the cash deposit is the proceeds of sales and should not have been treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 6. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law by applying section 115BBE, since the source of deposit of cash is verifiable. 7. The cash deposit could have been, at the most, be considered as turnover of the business and net profit @8% as per provisions of section 44AD should have been applied and income should have been calculated accordingly.

ITA No.15/VNS/2025 Page 4 of 6

8.

The taxable income should have been calculated after allowing the exemption limit under Income Tax Act for the assessment year under consideration. 9. The Order passed by the Ld. Assessing officer is illegal arbitrary and it is based on assumption and not based on the facts. 10. The assessee craves to add or delete any ground of appeal before the appeal is heard. 3.0 During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of delay of 738 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority and that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had not dealt with the issues in dispute on merits. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the AO has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and has passed the impugned assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, without bringing on record any material in support of the additions which were made on the basis of presumption and surmises only. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issues in dispute on merits of the case. He submitted that the assessee undertakes to produce all the relevant documents in

ITA No.15/VNS/2025 Page 5 of 6

support of the cash deposits made in her bank account, before the AO.

4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. objected to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

5.0 I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the order passed by the AO was ex-parte qua the assessee and the NFAC, without adjudicating the issues involved in the appeal, simply sustained the additions made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Looking into the facts of this case and the undertaking given by the Ld. A.R. in open Court to produce all the relevant documents before the AO, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case and, therefore, I set aside the order of the NFAC and restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based

ITA No.15/VNS/2025 Page 6 of 6

on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.

6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/08/2026.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:20/08/2026 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar/DDO

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →