ANKISHA SANTOSH PARMAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), BELGAUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 381/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 June 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's written submissions explaining the cash deposit as a gold loan and citing personal difficulties, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 60,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash deposit. The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to substantiate the cash deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, ‘DB’ PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal
Hearing: 12.06.2026Pronounced: 19.06.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 24.04.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 07.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even on the previous dates of hearing fixed on 17.02.2026, 17.03.2026, there was no appearance from the side of assessee. However, a letter has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal on 13.03.2026 requesting to decide the matter upon the written submissions. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld.

2 Ankisha Santosh Parmar

Departmental Representative on the basis of material available on record.

3.

From the perusal of grounds of appeal, the grievance of the assessee in the instant appeal revolves around the addition of Rs.60,88,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR while supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) submitted that assessee failed to make proper compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before ld.CIT(A) substantiating the cash deposit of Rs.60,88,000/- and therefore ld.CIT(A) was justified in affirming the addition made by the AO u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

5.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the written submissions and the judicial precedents placed in the paper book. We note that the assessee is an individual and return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 filed on 15.06.2016 declaring income of Rs.2,79,940/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS and assessment u/s.143(3) completed making addition u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act at Rs.60,88,000/-. We have perused the order of First Appellate Authority and find that assessee failed to make any submissions and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution merely confirming the action of the Assessing Officer.

6.

We have perused the written submissions filed by the assessee wherein it is stated that the cash deposited

3 Ankisha Santosh Parmar

represents the Gold loan obtained from South Indian Bank Ltd. Further, at the relevant point of time the assessee was under severe mental stress and a case for divorce filed in the Family Court, Ahmedabad (copy of divorce petition enclosed) and due to such reason there was no compliance to the notices issued by the lower authorities. It is further stated that assessee now possesses all the details to substantiate the cash deposit so made which is by way of Gold loan from South Indian Bank Ltd. She also relied on judicial precedents on the ground that ld.CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case in light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble

7.

Considering the facts in entirety and the written submissions filed by the assessee, we deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A). In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents to be filed by the assessee and then pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld.

4 Ankisha Santosh Parmar

CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 19th day of June, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 19th June, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →