GEETA KATARE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 675/AGR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-cooperative conduct in not filing details before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities could not be appreciated, the order of the CIT(A) was not a speaking order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on merits after reproducing the assessment order's reasoning, which added Rs. 45,00,000/- based on a seized document (LPS-01) indicating cash payment received by the assessee's husband on behalf of the assessee for property sale. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and to provide one more opportunity, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative. The CIT(A) was instructed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice. All grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Geeta Katare, is an individual. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The appeal is against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which dismissed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The Assessing Officer (AO) had information that the assessee, along with others, sold immovable properties for substantial consideration. Following a search in the premises of Narayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., a document marked 'LPS-01' was seized. Based on this document, the AO noted that the assessee received a cash payment of Rs. 45,00,000/- and added it to her income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without a speaking order, thereby violating principles of natural justice, and if so, whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case on merits? (Mixed question of law and fact, relating to procedural fairness and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contention: The order of the learned CIT(A) was ex-parte and non-speaking, and therefore, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present her case on merits before the CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (DB

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 675/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Geeta Katare, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), A-14, DB City Sachin Tendulkar Gwalior, Income Tax Office, Marg, Gwalior (MP)- 474011 Aaykar Bhawan, City Centre, Gwalior -474011 PAN : ALOPK8681Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.10.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.10.2026 ORDER PER : BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 17.08.2026 passed in appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10506964 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (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. 2020-21, wherein ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

ITA No.675/Agr/2026

2.

Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual. The AO had information that during the year, the assessee along with Smt. Sunita Sharma and Shri Vaibhav Sharma had sold immovable properties to M/s. Surya Developers, partner Shri Niket Jain and others on 13.09.2019 and 16.09.2019 for a consideration of Rs.54,08,000/- and Rs.5,41,32,800/- respectively. The AO further noted that in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her return of income on 22.07.2024 declaring total income of Rs.10,16,760/-. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that a search and seizure action was conducted in the premises of Narayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd, Orchid Tower, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior, wherein the document marked as ‘LPS-01’ was seized. Based on the above seized document, the AO noted that during the year the assessee had received cash payment of Rs.45,00,000/- and added the same u/s. 69A of the Act.

2.1 Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3.

At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex-parte order as well as a non- speaking order. The learned AR submitted that one more opportunity 2 | P a g e

ITA No.675/Agr/2026

may be given to the assessee to present her case before the learned CIT(A) on merits.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The assessment in this case has been made on the basis of search conducted in the case of Narayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is seen from para 5 of the order of learned CIT(A) that five opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, but no details were filed by the assessee and except on the first date, no petition for adjournment was also received by the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was thus compelled to pass impugned order. The non-cooperative conduct of the assessee cannot be appreciated. However, we also note that the order of the learned CIT(A) is not a speaking order and the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits by observing as under after reproducing the relevant extract of the assessment order :

“ 5.2.2. Vide ground 6 of appeal, the Appellant has Rs.45,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The Appellant has, however, not made any objected to addition of submission in this regard. On the other hand, it is observed from assessment order that the 3 | P a g e

ITA No.675/Agr/2026

AO has made impugned addition on the basis of documents seized from the premises of the persons to whom appellant has sold properties, coupled with detailed enquiries carried out by the AO, bringing corroborative evidences on records. In this regard, relevant part of the assessment order is reproduced below; “5………. The assessee Smt. Geeta Katare has sold property to the company i.e. M/s Narayanan Builders & Developer Pvt. Ltd. along with co-owner i.e. Sunita Sharma. However, the transactions were actually being physically monitored to execute the sale transaction. The Page No. 148-149 of the LPS-01 being seized documents from the premises during the course of search revealed that the assessee had received sale consideration both in cash and cheque, as is evident from the descriptions in the page No. 148-149 in the LPS-01. The transactions reflected depicted both cash and cheque transaction. The cheque transactions have been reflected in the bank account of the assessee i.e. Smt. Geeta Katare. Hence, it can be fairly inferred that the cash receipts reflected in the page No. 148-149 are nothing but cash payment made by Niket Jain (on behalf of Narayanan Builders & Developer Pvt. Ltd.). It is seen that the noting is having heading called RK Katare Ji. However, since the sale transaction was monitored by Shri Ram Kumar Katare being husband of the assessee Smt. Geeta Katare, the recipient has been mentioned as R K Katare Ji in the Page No. 148-149 in the LPS-01. The total cash payment made to Smt. Geeta Katare towards sale of the land for the A.Y. 2020-21 is Rs. 45,00,000/-, which has been received by Shri Ram Kumar Katare being husband of the assessee. Accordingly, the cash receipt of Rs. 45,00,000/- is being made in the hand of the assessee being u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In addition to this, Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the I.T Act, 1961 are being initiated." Thus, in view of facts of the case as discussed hereinabove, I uphold the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made by the AO. Ground is, thus, dismissed.” 5.1 Therefore, in the interest of justice, and to give one more opportunity to the assessee, we deem it just and appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. We, further, direct the assessee to be diligent and

4 | P a g e

ITA No.675/Agr/2026

cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the ld. CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say that ld. CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. All the grounds filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26/10/2026 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

5 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →