MATABADAL SURAJPAL MISHRA,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NAGPUR

ITA 132/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case with evidences and information. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issue back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting the information. The grounds of appeal of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition but remanded the matter for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Matabadal Surajpal Mishra, filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on March 30, 2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,98,490. His case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 142(1) and 133(6) and received information from the Bank of Baroda. Dissatisfied with the explanations for the source of cash deposits, the AO made an addition of Rs. 36,94,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and passed an order under section 143(3) on December 23, 2019. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, who, due to lack of proper compliance, confirmed the AO's action and dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed this appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on cash deposits during the demonetization period, without providing the assessee, a super senior citizen, an adequate opportunity to substantiate the source of funds from agricultural income? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action by overlooking assessment proceedings. The assessee, being a super senior citizen, claimed the cash deposits were out of agricultural income, possessing evidence of land holdings and income earned. The assessee prayed for an opportunity to present these evidences before the lower authorities. The assessee further emphasized holding ancestral agricultural lands and the ability to substantiate land holdings and agricultural income with documentary evidence to support the cash deposits. Revenue's Contention: The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

The Assessee has filed this appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi sustaining the addition u/sec. 69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a super senior citizen and has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.03.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,98,490/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act and called for explanations on the source of cash deposits, but there was no com

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 →