SANJAY AGRAWAL,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-2(1),SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

ITA 176/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee had an opening cash balance of Rs. 6,03,700/- as on March 31, 2016, and that the cash deposited during demonetization was not in SBN notes. However, it was observed that the assessee failed to provide full details before the lower authorities, leading the CIT(A) to confirm the addition without considering the assessee's submissions due to the lack of complete documentation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to produce all necessary details and documents. Consequently, the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with an adequate opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sanjay Agrawal, filed an appeal against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee deals in agricultural products and claimed to have deposited cash into a newly opened bank account during the demonetization period. This cash was stated to be from his opening balance of Rs. 6,03,700/- as on March 31, 2016. The assessee contended that the cash deposited was not in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) and that the lower authorities had not properly considered these facts. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for submission of relevant details. The Revenue did not object to this restoration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's submission that the cash deposited during demonetization was from his pre-existing balance and that full details were not considered by the lower authorities? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and proper consideration of evidence). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash deposited during demonetization was from his opening cash balance of Rs. 6,03,700/- as on 31.03.2016, and that these deposits were not in SBN notes. The assessee claimed that the lower authorities failed to properly consider these facts and therefore prayed for the issue to be restored to the Assessing Officer for submission of all relevant details. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any serious objection to the restoration of the appeal to the Assessing Officer.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 08/10/2026Pronounced: 08/10/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, VADODARA [in short ‘CIT(A)] in Appeal No.CIT(A), Sambalpur/10203/2019-20 dated 22/12/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri P. K. Mishra, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is dealing in purchase and sale of paddy rice, grams, and other agricultural products. It 2 was the submission that t

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →