MAMTA PRAMOD CHAUHAN,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1325/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 April 2026AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that documentary evidence regarding redemption of a policy held by the assessee's husband, amounting to Rs. 4,02,967/-, was ignored by the lower authorities. Therefore, the addition to that extent was not justifiable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, had undisclosed income of Rs. 11,84,619/- added to her total income. This addition was partly confirmed by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 6,69,008/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained credits in the bank account was justified, considering the documentary evidence of policy redemption.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SMC) SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1325/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mamta Pramod Chauhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-1/29, Aditya Villa, Opp. Ward-2(3)(3), Ramakaka Dairy, Nr. Prabhuta Hall, Surat Chhani, Vadodara-391440 [PAN No.AGWPC1323N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Samir Parikh, AR Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR 21.04.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2026 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 07.07.2025 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming partly addition ofRs. 6,69,008/- on account of establish the source of said amounts. 2. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above, either at or before the time of hearing.” 3. The appeal is time barred by 60 days for which the assessee has filed a detailed Affidavit, hence the same is condoned.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual that the assessee had not filed her return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is identified as a non-filer I the NMS (non-filer Management System) and there is AI/CIB/26AS information in respect to the above

ITA No. 1325/Srt/2025 Mamta Pramod Chauhan vs. ITO Asst. Year –2010-11 - 2– appellant on the ITD system for the year under consideration. The assessee has invested in Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund amounting to Rs. 8,00,216/- during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11. The notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 30.03.2017 which was served upon the learned AO through speed post. The assessee neither attended nor furnished his return of income for the year under consideration. Show cause notice dated 01.09.2017 was issued to the assessee and the date of hearing was fixed on 15.09.2017. The A.O. proceeded to finalize the reassessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessee did not filed her return of income, not attended nor any submission were made by her to explain the amount of rs. 11,84,619/- credited in her bank account. Hence, the whole amount of Rs. 11,84,619/- was considered as undisclosed and unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 u/s. 69A of the Act.

5.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has furnished the supporting documentary proof of the redemption policy held with TATA AIG of her husband along with the statement from TATA AIG Mutual Fund where an amount of Rs. 4,02,967/- were redeemed. The Ld. AR submitted that these details were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A).

7.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that at Page 22 to 30 of the Paper

ITA No. 1325/Srt/2025 Mamta Pramod Chauhan vs. ITO Asst. Year –2010-11 - 3–

Book the assesee has given the statement of transaction history of TATA AIG Life Insurance which categorically mentioned the assessee’s husband’s name and also the totaling of the amount of Rs. 4,02,967/- which was redeemed and deposits in the joint account held with Axis Bank. This factual aspect and the documentary evidences were totally ignored by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), therefore, the addition to that extent confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justifiable.

9.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in Open Court on 22/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat

1.

Date of dictation 21.04.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 22.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 22.04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 22.04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 22.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 22.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →