VINOD GOYAL,SURGUJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

ITA 330/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked reasoning and verification, failing to comply with the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remanded back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 87,29,157/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and other credit entries in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed this addition, stating the assessee failed to explain the source of the funds.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was passed without proper reasoning and verification, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “DB”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.07.2026Pronounced: 13.07.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 25.02.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

In this case, it would be relevant to extract the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which reads as follows:

“3. The AO made addition of Rs.87,29,157/- on account of cash deposit and other credit entries in the bank account of the appellate, h

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.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →