JAYA KACHHAP,DORANDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1, DHANBAD

ITA 79/RAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 August 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made when the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits, and the CIT(A) passed an order due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal found that affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO would serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the appeal back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to place documentary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jaya Kachhap, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a cash deposit of Rs. 86,23,500/- in the assessee's bank account. The assessee explained this as advance received in cash for land sale from Shri Gulab Bhagat. However, the son of Shri Gulab Bhagat denied any such transaction. As the assessee provided no documentary evidence, the AO added Rs. 86,23,500/- as unexplained cash credit, assessing the total income at Rs. 1,00,15,360/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The present appeal is before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the case to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit documentary evidence. (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The learned AR argued that the lower authorities passed orders due to the assessee's failure to submit documents. Therefore, an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to place documentary evidence before the AO and for the AO to pass a fresh order. The AR did not argue the merit of the case. Revenue's contention: The learned Sr. DR did not raise any objection to the assessee's prayer for remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandipan Khan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 10.08.2026

PER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015–16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16, declaring total income of Rs.13,91,860/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs.86,23,500/- in her bank account source of whic

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →