OMPRAKASH SONI,SUKMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD JAGDALPUR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JAGDALPUR

ITA 665/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 October 2026AY 2024-257 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Judicial Member acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding practical difficulties due to the remote area and past Naxalite issues, which hindered the timely submission of documentary evidence. Considering this, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to furnish all relevant documentary evidence before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to determine the validity of the assessee's contentions and pass a speaking order in accordance with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act, following the principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to comply with hearing notices and submit documents on merits. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to effectively pursue the appeal and provide supporting evidence, relying on cases like CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya and CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Omprakash Soni, filed an appeal before the ITAT Raipur Bench against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2024-25. The assessee had declared a total income of Rs. 8,09,040/-. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted high cash deposits of Rs. 12,78,048/-. The assessee claimed these deposits were recoveries of earlier years' sales debts, out of a total cash deposit of Rs. 1,13,67,000/-. However, the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, adding Rs. 12,78,048/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition, noting the assessee's failure to furnish evidence despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 12,78,048/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified, considering the assessee's claim of recovery of sales debts from earlier years? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash deposits represented recoveries of earlier years' sales debts. During the ITAT hearing, the assessee's counsel attributed the failure to furnish evidence to the assessee belonging to a remote area previously affected by Naxalite activity and prayed for one final opportunity to present documentary evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to furnish relevant details before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), and therefore, providing another opportunity would be unfair.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal &, Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, CAs
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.07.2026 for the assessment year 2024-25 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

Brief facts in this case are as follows: “The appellant is an individual and had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2024-25 declaring total income of Rs. 8,09,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny un

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →