SARSWATI KUSHWAHA,GRAM BALEDI, DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2, DEWAS, DEWAS

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of

the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act

for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as and by way of

a second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order

bearing No:- ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081776236(1)

dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the

Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned

order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to

31.03.2011.

2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s

144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, the total income of the assessee

was computed & assessed at Rs.27,80,500/-. Notice(s) u/s

142(1) dated 18.07.2018, 18.09.2018 & 15.11.2018 too were

not complied with. Even the last opportunity by letter dated

22.11.2018 was not complied with. No return of income was

filed. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated

06.12.2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the

“Impugned Assessment Order”.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal

u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the

“Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the

assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core

grounds & reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was

as under:

“3.1 In the interests of natural justice, this office issued various notices including the Final notice u/s 250 on 17.07.2025 calling upon the appellant to file comprehensive written submissions together with credible, verifiable, and conclusive documentary evidence in support of each ground. The due date was 24.07.2025.

3.2 On 24.07.2025, the appellant filed a partial response enclosing a general submission and referring to certain documents such as an alleged registered sale deed of agricultural land, an FDR of Rs9.50 lakh, and a linked loan of Rs8.30 lakh. However, despite explicit directions to furnish credible and conclusive evidence, the appellant submitted basic details. To contest the grounds of appeal and to establish the genuineness of the case, the appellant could have submitted third-party verifications and primary records such as bank statements, FDR and loan confirmations, payment schedule, party confirmations, and reconciliation of each deposit to source, however, no conclusive authenticated material was filed to discharge the onus under the Act 6. Appellant's Written Submissions

6.1 The appellant submitted that she is a rural resident with limited literacy; that the deposits represent family agricultural- land sale proceeds and a bank loan of Rs8.30 lakh against a Rs9.50 lakh FDR: that a Rs9.00.000 credit dated 05.07.2011 belongs to the subsequent financial year, and that the assessed figure of Rs27:80,500 is mechanically computed. However, no third-party corroboration such as certified bank statements, loan and FDR documents, or deposit-wise reconciliation was produced in response to the notice.

7.1 Ground Nos. 4.1 and 4.2 - Validity of reopening u/s 148 and assessment u/s 144

7.1.1 Reopening based on specific information of high-value cash deposits constitutes tangible material for belief of income escaping assessment as per section 147 and settled law. The appellant has not produced any document to rebut jurisdictional facts or to show procedural irregularity. The record shows valid issue of notice u/s 148 and subsequent notices u/s 142(1) In appellate stage also, detailed opportunity u/s 250 was granted but not utilized. Hence the action u/s 147/144 is in accordance with law.

Decision: Ground Nos. 4.1 and 4.2 are dismissed.

7.2 Ground No. 4.3 - Alleged denial of opportunity

7.2.1 Multiple statutory and appellate notices were issued. The onus to support the claim with primary evidence lay on the appellant, who failed to file certified bank statements, FDR/loan documents, registered deed with bank trail, and confirmations from purchasers. Therefore, the plea of no opportunity has no merit.

Decision: Ground No. 4.3 is dismissed.

7.3 Ground No. 4.4 - Addition of Rs27,80,500 u/s 69A

7.3.1 Under section 69A, where money is found in the ownership of an assessee and no satisfactory explanation is offered regarding its nature and source, it may be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The burden is on the assessee to provide a verifiable reconciliation of each deposit with documentary proof.

7.3.2 Additional finding on recorded evidence

It is noted that the appellant has not produced any clear and conclusive evidence establishes the grounds of appeal. Ledger accounts and complete bank trails were fo furnished along with certified bank statements. Third-party confirmations were also not filed No detailed or proper written submission was made; only general assertions were advanced without substantiation by credible legal evidence. Accordingly, the appellate contentions do not carry any greater evidentiary value. 7.3.3 The explanation that funds originated from family land sale arid bank loan remains unsupported by third-party proof or a deposit-wise reconciliation. Hence the addition u/s 69A-is upheld. Decision: Ground No. 4.4 is dismissed. 7.4 Ground No. 4.5- Residual This ground is general and requires no separate adjudication. Decision: Ground No. 4.5 is dismissed. 8. Conclusion 8.1 Upon holistic appraisal of the record and submissions, it is clear that the appellant has not discharged the onus of producing credible and verifiable documentary evidence to explain the impugned cash deposits The reopening under sections 147/148, the best-judgment assessment under section 144, and the addition under section 69A are found to be in order. The grounds of appeal accordingly fail both on facts and in law. 8.2 Order In view of the foregoing findings, the appeal is dismissed. The addition of Rs.27,80,500 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A is confirmed.”

2.3 The assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has

preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has

raised the following grounds of appeal in the form no. 36 against

the “impugned order” which are as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the facts and evidences filed. The copy of the registry of sale of agriculture land was submitted to the Ld. CIT(A). 2. The assessment was framed ex-parte and the notices were sent on a wrong address and as such no proof were given before the Ld.AO. The request of set-aside of the assessment was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The addition if Rs. 27,80,500/- may please be deleted. 4. The assessee craves to amend, alter or delete any of the ground of appeal.”

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal

on 15.04.2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the

Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the

“Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It

therefore deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR at the outset

contended that the “Impugned Assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act & it is an exparte order. It was contended

that notice(s) were served at wrong address by the

department consequently there is wrong service of notice(s).

A statement of fact was filed before the Ld. CIT(A)

highlighting the non-service of notice(s) & exparte nature of

the “Impugned Assessment Order”. the Ld. AR has placed

on the records of this tribunal a paper book containing pages

1 to 22. It was emphasized that the assessee is from

agriculture family & having a rural background. The

assessee’s family members are engaged in the agriculture

activities. All income received from the agriculture operation

are deposited in the bank account. Our attention was invited

to para 7.3 & 8.1 of the “Impugned Order” which we have

already reproduced as above. The Ld. AR emphasized that

the assesssee has not been able to make effective

representation before the lower authorities. In so far as the

issue of penalty proceedings are concerned it was submitted

that the assessee has not given any instructions in this

regard. It was submitted that without prejudice to the

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) the assessee now seeks before this Tribunal that the assessee being a woman with

agriculture & rural background be given an opportunity to

set up her defence which could not be made earlier before

lower authorities due to several difficulties both personal &

financial. It was submitted that the assessee’s husband

Shri Mohanlal along with her mother-in-law had sold the

agricultural land on 22.07.2010 for sum of Rs.63.90

lakhs. Sale deed is now placed on record pages 8 -22 of

the PB. Out of this amount Rs.38.90 lakhs was received

by her family members in the preceding years, while

Rs.25 lakhs the remainder was received by the assessee’s

family members in the form of cheque on 25.07.2010.

From the amount of Rs.38.90. lakhs an amount of Rs.10

lakhs was deposited in June & July 2010 in her account.

An FDR of Rs.9.50 lakhs was made & against the FDR a

loan of Rs.8.30 lakhs was taken. Basis this an amount of

Rs.27,80,500.00 is qualified by the Ld. AO. Hence an

opportunity to explain be given to the assessee. Per contra

the ld. DR appearing for & on behalf of the revenue

contended that revenue has no objection if this tribunal deems it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld.

AO for denovo adjudication. Hearing was then concluded &

closed.

4.1 We have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary of the

“impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival

submission canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have

heard the submissions.

4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon

examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR

canvassed before us are of the considered opinion that the

“impugned assessment order” is under section 144/147 of

the Act & the matter has not been adjudicated & adjudged

basis merits. Even the “Impugned Order” is not on merits.

This Tribunal desires that the total income of the assessee

should be computed & assessed on the real time basis

exigible to tax in accordance with law by following the due

process of law under the Act. This Tribunal also expects the assessee to be compliant & should cooperate with the

department as & when notices etc are issued. In brief this

Tribunal desires the meritorious disposal of both the

“Impugned Assessment Order” as well as the “Impugned

Order”. ths assessee’s cooperation in this regard assumes

importance. The assessee cannot go in slumber mode. In the

result we are of the considered opinion that the “Impugned

Order” should be set aside & the mater should be remanded

back to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a fresh order on the

merits of the case. It is the expectation of this tribunal

that the assessee would give his full & complete details

including latest e-mail address & of counsel where the

notice(s) could be served effectively by the department.

The assessee is directed to attend hearing as & when fixed &

to file reply & details along with documents, material,

evidence etc, as are sought by the Ld. AO.

4.4 In view of the premises drawn up by us, we set aside the

“Impugned Order” & remand the case back to the file of the

Ld. AO on the denovo basis who shall now pass a speaking &

well reasoned order.

5 Order

5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with direction as

aforesaid.

5.2 The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Pronounced in open court on 24.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore Dated : 24 /04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 10 of 10