SHIVANGI AMOL KUDCHADKAR,CURCHOREM, GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MARGAO, GOA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 126/PAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 August 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence furnished by the assessee, finding that it required verification at the CIT(A)'s level. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to abnormal cash deposits during demonetization. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 25,61,500/- as unexplained money under Section 69A, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made in the bank account were unexplained money, and if additional evidence should be considered for verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH “SMC”, PANAJI

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sidhesh Burye (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble
Hearing: 12.08.2026Pronounced: 13.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Surat [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is delay of 90 days in filing of the present appeal. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we

2 ITA No.126/PAN/2026

are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 90 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act even though the nature and the source of the cash deposits made in the bank account were found to be duly explained. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in treating the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A even though the advance money is found to be returned to other person in the same year on the instructions received from the Contractee. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the said contract is already executed by the partner and the M/s JMD Developers and the gross receipts from the said contract are found to be duly disclosed in the return of income. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, delete from or modify the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3 ITA No.126/PAN/2026

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed her return of income on 28.03.2018 by declaring income of Rs.3,20,160/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to the reason of abnormal increase in cash deposit during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 03.12.2019 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.28,81,660/- as against the income of Rs.3,20,160/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.25,61,500/- being unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act deposited in bank account. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Not being

4 ITA No.126/PAN/2026

satisfied with the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsel from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the contention of the assessee that various relevant documents could not be furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the same may kindly be considered by the Bench for disposal of appeal. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we admit the above additional evidences, however these additional evidences requires verification at the level of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we deem it appropriate to set- aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per

5 ITA No.126/PAN/2026

fact and law after calling remand report from the Assessing Officer with regard to these additional evidences, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and additional evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 13th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.13 15:42:33 +05'30'

6 ITA No.126/PAN/2026

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)-2, Surat. 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.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →