SMT. RAJ KUMARI JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 1381/JPR/2025 Smt. Raj Kumari Jain IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,“A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1381/JPR/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Raj Kumari Jain Vs. ITO, 58, Rameshwaram Colony, Ward -6(4), Tonk Road Sitawadi Jaipur Sanganer, Jaipur �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAQPJ1389R Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Date of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.05.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals(hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 27.03.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. The assessee in his appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:-

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1381/JPR/2025 Smt. Raj Kumari Jain 1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal without service of notice and providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.64,75,500/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposit in the bank account as unexplained 2 ignoring that cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.05.2016 is out of cash withdrawal of same amount made from the same bank on 04.05.2016 and cash deposit of Rs.59,75,000/- on 12.11.2016 is out of the cash sales. 3. The lower authorities have erred on facts and in law in taxing the alleged unexplained cash deposit in the bank account u/s 115BBE @ 60% instead of taxing the same @ 30% by ignoring that section 115BBE substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment Act), 2016 which received the assent of President on 15.12.2016 and made applicable from 01.04.2017 is applicable to any transaction from 01.04.2017 onwards and not to any transaction prior to 01.04.2017 as held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT vide order dt. 19.11.2024. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 5. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. As per the note of Registry, the appeal is time barred by 123 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee did not come to know about the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to appeal Form 35, wherein, under the relevant column asking “Whether the notices/communications may be sent on email”, the assessee answered as “No”. The Learned counsel has submitted that no notice was served by Ld. CIT(A) in physical mode. The learned counsel has further submitted that even Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the assessee. The notices were issued on 11.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 and whereas the appeal has been

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1381/JPR/2025 Smt. Raj Kumari Jain decided on 27.03.2025 and that even otherwise there was no possibility for the assessee to present his case in such a short span. 4. Considering, the above averments, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case. 5. With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 26/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 26.05.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur