VARSHA VIVEK PATIL,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) BELGAVI, BELAGAVI

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Jodhpur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2011-12.

2 ITA No.226/PAN/2026

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / Addl. JCIT(A), Jodhpur erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹19,79,450/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the impugned cash deposits stood fully explained through documentary evidences, confirmations and source details furnished during assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 3. The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering the confirmations, evidences and sources filed in respect of amounts received from Shri Vivek V. Patil and Shri Pranay Vivek Patil aggregating to ₹19,79,450/-, thereby rendering the order contrary to facts and evidence on record. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits in bank account without appreciating that bank passbook / bank statement does not constitute books of account of the assessee for the purpose of section 68. 5. The impugned appellate order is bad in law being a non- speaking order, passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it does not contain proper points for determination, reasons for decision and adjudication of evidences placed on record. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A) is liable to be set aside as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.”

3 ITA No.226/PAN/2026

4 ITA No.226/PAN/2026

satisfied with the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that the matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper appreciation of facts in the light of confirmation letters and other documents furnished by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer in remand report proceedings. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer issued notice on 07.11.2019 to the assessee for furnishing reply with regard to remand proceedings, however, while deciding the appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has not referred any remand

5 ITA No.226/PAN/2026

report in his order. It is also the claim of the assessee that she was not provided remand report, if any. We further find that the assessee duly produced confirmation letters and other relevant documents but it appears that the same were not considered in full by Ld. CIT(A). 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case and also with the consent of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of her contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass

6 ITA No.226/PAN/2026

appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 18th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 18th August, 2026. Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Sujeet/DOC Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.19 11:06:45 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A), Jodhpur. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.