SABITA JAIN,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1278/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 April 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce requisite information before the lower authorities and that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed her income tax return, but failed to comply with notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) regarding substantiating cash deposits and business transactions. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 13,00,000 as unexplained money, and the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

ITA No. 1278/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sabita Jain IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 1278/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Sabita Jain,…….………..……………………….…Appellant Neem Chand Jain, Checkpost, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001, W.B. [PAN:AFYPJ5755N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: March 05, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: April 28, 2026 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.04.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018.

2.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed e-return of her income for the assessment year 2017-18 on

ITA No. 1278/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sabita Jain 24.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,47,200/-. The case was selected through CASS for complete scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee through e-mail. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 04.10.2019 along with list of questionnaire and requisition for details/documents in support of the return, which has been duly served on the assessee through e-mail but the same was not complied with by the assessee. Again, notice under section 142(1) was issued regarding calling various information including month- wise details of sales and purchases, cash flow statement, copy of trade license and reason for maintaining cash in hand till 08.11.2016. The assessee submitted the details of cash deposit of Rs.13,00,000/- during demonetization period and cash deposits made in bank during FYs 2015-16 and 2016-17. On going through the figure of month-wise details of purchases and sales given by the assessee, it is seen that average monthly so-called purchase was Rs.1,00,000/- therefore, daily average purchase comes to Rs.3,350/-. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that maintaining cash in hand of Rs.13,00,000/- is not normal. The assessee failed to substantiate her claim of having deposited the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- during demonetization period out of her cash in hand and carrying out of any business of selling of vegetables. Therefore, getting no satisfactory reply from the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Income Tax Act and added to the total income of the assesesee.

ITA No. 1278/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sabita Jain Finally, ld. Assessing Officer determined the assessed total income at Rs.16,47,200/-.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte by observing as under:- “6.2. I have carefully considered the facts of the case. In spite of adequate opportunity, the appellant did not file any documentary evidences/proof in support of grounds of appeal filed in Form No. 35. It is evident from the file that despite a period of more than four years from the issue of first notice, the appellant has not taken efforts to make any submissions. In the notices, it was specifically pointed out that if no submissions/information/documents is/are received within the stipulated time period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this matter. It is, requested to furnish your submissions along with relevant documents on or before 17.03.2025. Despite the above indication, the appellant has not responded nor has submitted anything in his defence. It is bounden duty of the appellant that submissions be made in support of grounds of appeal.

As the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the business and not complied to notices issued during appellate proceedings and has brought nothing on record to rebut the finding of the ld. Assessing Officer. In no way she could substantiate the sell and purchases made by her for her business and did not furnish any evidence in support of her claim, therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

4.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to give an opportunity so that she can

ITA No. 1278/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sabita Jain substantiate her claim. The ld. Counsel also pleaded that the ld. ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without considering the merits of the case and simply relied on the order of ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel pleaded to set aside the order passed by the revenue authorities.

5.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

6.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessee failed to produce the details of requisite information as asked before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of her claim. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the

ITA No. 1278/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sabita Jain case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026.

Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 28th day of April, 2026

Copies to :(1) Sabita Jain, Neem Chand Jain, Checkpost, Sevoke Road, Siliguri-734001, W.B. (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →