NIRANJANA RAY,PATNA vs. ITO WARD-1(1), PATNA

ITA 17/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 September 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to allow the assessee's request to remand the case back to the AO. The purpose of this remand is to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and to make further submissions in support of her grounds of appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee should not seek unnecessary adjournments. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for reassessment de novo. The grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to remand the case for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Niranjana Ray, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed 11 days beyond the limitation period, which the Tribunal condoned due to the assessee, a 70-year-old lady, suffering from illness. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions totaling ₹35,65,384/- under Sections 69, 69A, and for Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) and business income from share trading. The assessee had initially filed her return of income declaring ₹79,000/-. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte due to non-responsiveness and failure to furnish documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,12,000 made by the assessment unit as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,87,847 made by the assessment unit as unexplained delivery-based purchases under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 3,97,000 made by the assessment unit as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,15,208 as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,329 as business income from share trading, assuming the profit and loss account of SMC Global Securities Ltd. contained details of non-delivery based share transactions only, whereas it contained details of both delivery and non-delivery based transactions. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the property was purchased by her husband, a retired government officer and doctor, and that there were cash deposits in banks. The assessee, being 70 years old, requested that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be remanded to the AO for de novo assessment due to lack of proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Department (DR) relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and requested that it be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: CA. प्रत्यर्थी के ओर से/

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed ITA No(s). 17/PAT/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 Niranjana Ray. u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] for AY 2015-

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →