SUNITA AGARWAL,DAYALBAGH vs. ACIT, AGRA

ITA 629/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 October 2026AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A), while passing the impugned order, mentioned the correct details of the appellant, Sunita Agarwal, for AY 2011-12, including her PAN. However, the order itself pertained to another assessee with the same name but a different PAN and AY. The Tribunal found this to be a perverse order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee for AY 2011-12. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunita Agarwal, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Agra, against an order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding an addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had reopened the assessment under Section 147, treating cash deposits in the assessee's bank account as unexplained income. The assessee claimed these deposits were from the sale of two plots and other cash available. The CIT(A)'s order was challenged on the grounds that it was passed based on facts, PAN, and assessment year pertaining to another assessee, rendering it a nullity. The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 261 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is a nullity in the eyes of law, having been passed on the basis of facts, PAN, Assessment Year, and appeal particulars belonging to another assessee, and therefore liable to be quashed outright, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 2. Whether the authorities below erred in law and facts in making and sustaining the addition on account of cash deposits of Rs. 21,50,000/- in the bank account of the appellant, while the same were allegedly disclosed in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, being redeposit of cash withdrawals or sale proceeds of land sold during the year, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by passing an order which is ex facie erroneous, arbitrary, non-application of mind, and invalid, as it proceeds on facts not relating to the appellant, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr (DR)
Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed in appeal No CIT(Appeal) 2, Agra/10410/2018-19 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ ADDL/JCIT (A) KOCHI [(hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2011-12, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 21,50,000/- made in the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 24.12.2018 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.

2.

At the very outset, according to registry’s report, the appellant filed this appeal on 18.08.2026 by a delay of about 261 days

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →