NOORAJAHAN SALIM PATEL,BHARUCH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.82/SRT/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mrs. Noorjahan Salim Patel, Assessing Officer 93, Duka Street Segava, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Bharuch Vs. Department, Bharuch Gujarat Bharuch, Gujarat PAN:BWMPP4283R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Krishna Mathur, CA Respondent by : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 13.10.2025 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2019-20.

ITA No.82/SRT/2026 Mrs. Noorjahan Salim Patel The appellant feels aggrieved by the rejection of her agricultural background and source of income. Ground B: Failure to appreciate agricultural activities of the appellant 3. The Learned Office erred in rejecting the agricultural income of the appellant merely for want of formal documentation, without appreciating the rural agricultural realities, past conduct of the appellant and bank-linked agricultural receipts, thereby arriving at an erroneous conclusion. The appellant feels aggrieved by the manner in which the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. Ground C: Unjustified and mechanical best judgment assessment 4. The learned Officer erred in completing the asessment under Section 144 of the Act in a mechanical manner, despite the appellant having filed her return of income and furnished explanations, rendering the assessment arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable in law. The appellant feels aggrieved by the ex-parte disposal of the appeal by the Learned CIT(A). Ground D: Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-service of effective notice 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in disposing of the appeal ex-parte and without adjudication on merits, despite the appellant having specifically requested in Form No. 35 for condonation of delay and for grant of personal hearing through an authorized representative, clearly explaining that the appellant is an agriculturist with limited access to emails and that physical service of notices may be ensured. However, all notices and communications were issued only through the online portal/e-mail, which were never effectively received or accessed by the appellant. The Learned CIT(A) failed to ensure effective service of notice and dismissed the appeal mechanically for alleged non- prosecution, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant respectfully seeks appropriate relief. Ground E: Prayer for opportunity and remand 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant respectfully prays that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(A) with a direction to grant the appellant one final effective opportunity to submit all relevant evidences and explanations and to decide the matter afresh on merits after providing due opportunity of being heard. The appellant craves your Honour's leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or before.

ITA No.82/SRT/2026 Mrs. Noorjahan Salim Patel PRAYER In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds stated hereinabove, the appellant humbly prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: 1. Delete the addition of 21,27,000 made under Section 69A of the Act; 2. Quash the application of Section 115BBE of the Act; 3. Set aside the order passed by the Learned CIT(A); and 4. Grant such other relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) observed that the assessee made cash withdrawals of Rs.21,27,000/- and received interest of Rs.1,60,265/- totaling to Rs.22,87,265/- during the relevant year. Subsequently, the AO issued notice dated 23.03.2023 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The assessee filed return of income on 15.12.2023 for A.Y. 2019-20 thereby declaring total income of Rs.1,60,270/- and claimed refund of Rs.60,820/-. Subsequently, several notices were issued by the AO to provide documentary evidence regarding cash deposits and cash withdrawals but the assessee did not reply and therefore the AO proceeded u/s 144 of the Act. After taking cognizance of the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act the AO made addition of Rs.21,27,000/- in respect of cash withdrawal and interest credited in assessee’s bank account under the head “income from other sources” u/s 69A of the Act. The AO also made addition of Rs.1,60,265/- in respect of interest received from SBI and Bank of Baroda.

ITA No.82/SRT/2026 Mrs. Noorjahan Salim Patel having cash in hand. The same was offered to taxation which was pointed out by the Ld. AR at page 108 of the paper book. The Ld. AR further submitted that as regards to source of income the assessee deriving agricultural income and has given the detail of the same before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). In fact, the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without taking into account the details.

Date Particulars Amount For Account No.02250100026599 09.01.2019 Receipt of Loan Proceeds 11,90,000 15.02.2019 Receipt of Loan Proceeds 11,90,000 Other Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 39,000 Interest Income received on various dates 83,698 Total 25,02,698 For Account No. 02250100009676 29.05.2018 Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 1,70,000 10.08.2018 Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 10,000 04.10.2018 Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 15,000 16.11.2018 Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 10,965 08.01.2019 Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 8,642 02.03.2019 Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 50,882 Other Sale Proceeds from Agriculture 70,300 Total 3,35,789

ITA No.82/SRT/2026 Mrs. Noorjahan Salim Patel 8. Thus, these details were very much before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) and therefore the addition made by the AO in respect of section 69A of the Act thereby saying cash withdrawal are unexplained money is not justified. Hence, the addition does not sustain.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30.06.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order,

Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench