VIBHA VASHISHT,ROPAR, PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 416/CHANDI/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 April 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence might substantiate the sources of investment. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the AO was directed to frame a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's investment of Rs. 218.57 Lacs and bank interest of Rs. 24,565/- were added to her income as unexplained. The assessee sought to submit additional evidence and requested a hearing before lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be allowed to submit additional evidence and have a de novo assessment framed in light of it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.416/CHANDI/2025 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ms. Vibha Vashisht ITO Ward-1 बनाम/ Vs. H.No.405, Ward No.9, Morinda Shimla - 533201 Ropar-140302 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AMPPJ-6447-H (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23-04-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 27-04-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 25-02-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 25-03-2022.

2.

The Ld. AR, at the outset, sought admission of additional evidences and pleaded for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 3. From case records, it emerges that the assessee remained non- compliant during reassessment proceedings. In the result, the investment made by the assessee for Rs.218.57 Lacs was held to be unexplained investment. The Bank interest of Rs.24,565/- was also added to the income of the assessee. The position remained the same during first appeal and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The perusal of additional evidences as placed on record by Ld. AR would indicate that the assessee may be in a position to substantiate the sources of the impugned investment and these evidences would have material bearing on the impugned issue. Considering the same, we set aside the impugned order and direct Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment in the light of these evidences with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. 5. The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27th April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:27-04-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT

4.

िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →