SHANTI DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(4), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary contention was the lack of sufficient opportunity to furnish documents during the assessment proceedings and the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A). Considering these facts, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and any other relevant documentary evidence that the assessee may furnish to explain the source of cash deposits. The AO is also mandated to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in accordance with the law. The issue of whether the addition was justified based on the evidence was not decided on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shanti Devi, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 18.06.2026 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal challenges an addition of Rs.24,48,830/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The assessee contended that the AO issued a show cause notice on 14.12.2019 and passed the assessment order on 19.12.2019, providing insufficient time to furnish documents. The CIT(A) rejected additional documents filed by the assessee as evidence without seeking a remand report from the AO. The assessee sought an opportunity to present these documents.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity to furnish documents in response to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, in relation to the addition of Rs.24,48,830/- on account of unexplained cash deposits (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the period between the issuance of the show cause notice (14.12.2019) and the passing of the assessment order (19.12.2019) was insufficient to furnish necessary documentary evidence. Furthermore, the CIT(A) arbitrarily rejected additional evidence filed before it without obtaining a remand report from the AO. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its Senior Departmental Representative, relied on the findings of the CIT(A) and prayed for the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 18.06.2026, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ms. Priynka Garg, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee in appeal has assailed addition of Rs.24,48,830/- upheld by the CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.24,48,830/- on account
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
