ANJULATA BEHERA,KENDRAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, KENDRAPADA, KENDRAPARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 143/CTK/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-2018

Anjulata Behera, Vs. Income Tax Officer, At-Kakat, P.O./P.S/Dist- Ward, Kendrapada, Kendrapara, 754211 At- Income Tax Office, [PAN: BHQPB7389M] Kendrapara Ward - 754250 APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sh. P.K. Mishra, AR Revenue by : Sh. Umakanta Dhrupati, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.04.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

These appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)], dated 12.12.2025, DIN

2 ITA No. 143/CTK/2026 Anjulata Behera

& Order No. Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250-26/1083633342(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that, the learned CIT(A) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and in confirming the assessment order passed by the learned A.O., without considering submissions made and connected evidences uploaded by the Appellant during course of assessment as well as hearing of Appeal, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 2. For that, without considering the submissions made and without examining connected evidences produced by the Appellant during course of assessment as well as hearing of Appeal, the additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A), simply on the basis of findings given in the remand report, is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the order passed by him, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice. 3. For that, the learned A.O. without providing sufficient, opportunity to produce books of account manually during course of remand proceeding and when it was informed to him that, it being voluminous in number and size, could not be uploaded, additions of Rs 1,47,84,306.00 and Rs.3,20,000.00 should not have been confirms on the basis of findings given in the remand report submitted by the learned AD Impugned additions made during assessment and sustained in remand proceeding by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CITA being made on gross violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 4. For that, while accepting the sales turnover and when, the alleged deposits of Rs 3,20,000.00 forms part of sales turnover, the learned A.Q. has committed gross error of law as well as of fact in treating it as unexplained money by applying section 694 of the Act. The Impugned addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), without considering the submissions made and evidences uploaded by the Appellant, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 5 For that, when the learned A.O has accepted the business turnover and money so deposited in the bank account of the Appellant were out of sales proceeds and forms part of sales turnover, addition of Rs.1,47,84,306.00 ie part of sales turnover cannot be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, as such, the Impugned addition of Rs.1,47,84,306.00 by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A), being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to facts on record, is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6. For that section 694 of the Act has no application under the facts and In the circumstances of the case a such addition of Rs.1,047,84,306.00 Rs 3,20,000.00 made by the learned A.O. treating it as unexplained money and

3 ITA No. 143/CTK/2026 Anjulata Behera confirmed by the learned CIT(A), being hat sustainable the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice. 7. For that, the Appellant craves leave of this honourable Tribunal to add, alter, amend or modify the Grounds of Appeal taken in the Appeal Memo and to urge other grounds of appeal, if any, at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.”

4 ITA No. 143/CTK/2026 Anjulata Behera deposited cash in SBN’s of Rs. 3,20,000/- which was also treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, assessed the income of Rs. 1,55,42,530/-.

5 ITA No. 143/CTK/2026 Anjulata Behera regarding the cash deposits as per observation of the AO. It was seen that the cash deposits are more than turnover reflected in the P & L account and VAT return. We also noted that during the appellate proceedings, the case was not properly represented. Considering the prayer of the ld. counsel, interests of justice and facts of the case, we are remitting this issue back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication and decide the issue as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with cogent documents in support of his claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.

Order pronounced on 20.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.04.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.

6 ITA No. 143/CTK/2026 Anjulata Behera Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches