BIMAL DEVNATH,PAKHANJORE,PAKHANJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR,, JAGDALPUR,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without discussing the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed an addition of Rs. 2,11,02,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not consider their elaborate submissions and annexures.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the assessee's submissions before confirming the addition. Whether the cash deposits were adequately explained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “DB”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश / ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 on 27.02.2026 emanating from assessment order under section 147 rws 144 of the Act dated 27.03.2024.
Submission of Ld. AR :
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed elaborate submission before the Ld. CIT(A) contenting 7 Annexures. Ld. AR took us through e-acknowledgment to demonstrate the documents filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Copies of e-acknowledgment are at page No. 35-36 of the paper book. Ld. AR further submitted that, however Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the elaborate submission including the 7 Annexures. Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order without considering the submission of the assessee.
Submission of Ld. DR :
Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).
Findings and Analysis :
We have heard both parties and perused the records. In this case, Ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that the assessee failed to file explanation. The relevant paragraph No. 2.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced here as under: “2.1. The assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2,11,02,000/- in State Bank of India in the F.Y. 2018-19 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20 which remains unexplained. The assessee has not filed his ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, nor declared his true income and has not paid taxes due thereon. The assessee has not responded to notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice during assessment proceedings. The assessee has failed to give any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits, hence the value of entries of Cash deposits in F.Y. 2018-19 appearing in State Bank of India is deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. Thus, an addition of Rs.2,11,02,000/- is made to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money and tax is to be calculated as per the provision of u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The addition of Rs.2,11,02,000/- u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is confirmed.”
Thus, it can be seen that Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without discussing the elaborate submission filed by the assesse.
In these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The assessee shall file all the details before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also consider the details filed before him. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. HKS, PS
आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Hem Kumari Digitally signed by Hem Kumari Shrivastava, Shrivastava, PS, ITAT, PS, ITAT, Raipur //True copy// Date: 2026.07.31 Raipur 13:04:51 +05'30' // True Copy // Private Secretary, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026