POOJA SWAMI,GWALIOR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 625/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not applied its mind properly or conducted a critical analysis of the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) merely observed that the Assessing Officer's findings did not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity, without appreciating the assessee's arguments. The Tribunal emphasized that the reason is the 'life of law' and that the absence of analysis indicates a non-application of mind. Citing Section 250(6) of the Act, the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) was expected to state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pooja Swami, is in appeal against the order dated 29.06.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, which dismissed her appeal against the assessment order dated 10.03.2026. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were initiated based on information regarding the assessee's high-value trading in Crypto-Currency (Bitcoin) during FY 2017-18. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 13,850/-. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,61,95,842/- as undisclosed capital gains from crypto trading and Rs. 27,72,41,266/- as unexplained bank credits/cash deposits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, which is alleged to be illegal, unjustified, and bad in law? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 147, 144B, and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the credits without considering the benefit of debits, thus failing to account for inflows and outflows related to cryptocurrency sales and purchases? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the computation of income under the Act). Assessee's contentions (as understood from grounds of appeal): The CIT(A)/NFAC's order confirming the Assessing Officer's additions is illegal and unjustified. The CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the inflows and outflows of cryptocurrency transactions, specifically by not giving benefit of debits against corresponding credits. Revenue's contentions: The CIT(A) DR supported the impugned order. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 625/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Swami, Vs. Assessment Unit, 33, Sector 1, Vinay Nagar, GIRD, Income Tax Department, S.P. Ashram, S.O., Gwalior-474012 Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Gwalior-474002 PAN: DTXPS4197B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 29.09.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, J.M.

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed in appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10574876 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/NFAC (Delhi) [(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. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A), has dismissed assessee’s appeal. 2. Perusal of the records shows that the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by the assessing officer on the basis of the information available with the department, that the assessee had

ITA No.625/Agr/2026

undertaken high value trading in Crypto-Currency (Bitcoin) during the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19. The notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.08.2024 was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed return in compliance thereof, declaring total income at Rs. 13,850/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and show cause notices were issued, seeking assessee’s response. Assessee responded partly before the assessing officer. After considering assessee’s part response, ld assessing officer completed assessment and added Rs. 1,61,95,842/- as undisclosed capital gains from trading in Crypto-Currency (Bitcoin) and Rs. 27,72,41,266/- as unexplained bank credits/ cash deposits, vide assessment order dated 10.03.2026 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal. 4. Assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: “1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the above case is illegal, unjustified and bad in law which may be quashed and appeal may be allowed. 2) That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the credits appearing and not giving benefit of debits appearing in the account thus not considering the inflows and outflows of corresponding sales and purchases of cryptocurrency. That the returned income be accepted and the appeal may be allowed. 3) Any other point if necessary will be raised at the time of hearing.”

2 | P a g e

ITA No.625/Agr/2026

5.

The adjournment application moved on behalf of the appellant was rejected, none represented for the assessee. Perused records and heard ld CIT DR, who supported the impugned order. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that ld CIT(A) has narrated the detailed submission of assessee in para 5 of its order, however made no endeavour to appreciate assessee’s contentions raised therein. Ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal by observing in para 6 of its order that the findings recorded by the assessing officer in the impugned assessment order do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. The arguments tendered by the appellant are not tenable and accordingly dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 7. We notice that there is no due or proper application of mind or any critical analysis or objective consideration by ld CIT(A) in the matter, despite the same being first appellate authority. It is well settled in law that the reason is the life of law. It is that filament that injects soul to the order. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but also mummifies the core spirit of the order. Learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to

3 | P a g e

ITA No.625/Agr/2026

pass speaking order. We direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 29.06.2026 is set aside.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on - 29.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 30.09.2026

*Aamir, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →