SUCHITA BHATTACHARYYA,KOLKATA vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 12(1) , CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3655/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 November 2026AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an order based on departmental information and partial submissions, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a lack of documentary evidence. The assessee's representative argued that the fixed deposits were made from inherited funds, insurance claims, and monies from the deceased husband, and the foreign remittance was for children's education. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to frame a fresh assessment order de novo, in accordance with the law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was advised to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Suchita Bhattacharyya, is an individual who did not file an income tax return for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO), Non-Corp Ward-12(1), Chennai, reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on information regarding term deposits, foreign remittances, and income from banks. Despite notices, the assessee failed to file a return but provided a reply without documentary evidence. The AO, after obtaining bank statements, passed an ex-parte assessment order on March 26, 2024, making additions totaling Rs. 74,52,270/- under Sections 69A and 69C, and as income from other sources. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on March 11, 2026, due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,08,105/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by treating fixed deposits as unexplained, when the assessee claimed they were made from inherited funds, insurance claims, and monies received from her deceased husband (Assessee's contention). The Revenue argued that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity and there was no error in the CIT(A)'s order (Revenue's contention). 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,13,707/- under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of foreign remittance, when the assessee claimed the amount was spent on her children's education (Assessee's contention). The Revenue argued that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity and there was no error in the CIT(A)'s order (Revenue's contention).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 11.11.2026

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, Non-Corp Ward-12(1), Chennai [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”], u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2019-20.

:-2-: ITA. No.3655/Chny/2026 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file its return of income for AY 2019-20. As per information available with the department, the assessee has made term deposits to the tune of Rs.1,05,92,505/-, outward foreign remittance of Rs.14,37,225/- and the assessee had received Rs.9,10,570/- from SBI Life Insurance Bank Ltd., and Income income from SBI and ICICI Bank Ltd to the tune of Rs.4,30,458/- for the year under consideration. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and by calling for details. In response, the assessee failed to file the return of income but she furnished reply without documentary evidence. Meanwhile, the AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act and obtained bank account statement from ICICI Bank and State Bank of India. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee and the material available on record, the AO concluded the re-assessment and passed an ex-parte order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 26.03.2024, by making an addition to the tune of Rs.74,52,270/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and income from other sources and adding the same to the total income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 24.04.2024.

4.

At the outset, we observe that the Ld.CIT(A) provided three opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearings in support of its appeal, as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of the impugned order. However, the assessee merely sought adjournments without filing any written submissions or supporting documents. Consequently, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and passed an ex parte order dated 11.03.2026, confirming the assessment order passed by the AO. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.

:-3-: ITA. No.3655/Chny/2026

5.

The ld.AR contended that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.66,08,105/- u/s.69A by treating the fixed deposits as unexplained, though the same were made out of inherited funds, insurance claim and monies received the deceased husband. Further, the ld.AR argued that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,13,707/- u/s.69C of the Act in respect of foreign remittance, though the said amount was spent for the education of the assessee’s children. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of AO. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

6.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has already been given sufficient opportunity and there is no error in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed an order by considering the information available with the department and partly submission made by the assessee and on appeal the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to lack of documentary evidence in support of her claim.

8.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

:-4-: ITA. No.3655/Chny/2026 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th November, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस एस 'व(वने) र'व) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) �या�यक सद+य/Judicial Member लेखासद+य/Accountant Member

चे�ई/Chennai, EJTADA Digitally signed by िदनांक/Dated, the 11th November, 2026 EJTADA DURGA DURGA NARESH E. Durga Naresh, Sr. PS Date: 2026.11.13 NARESH 11:51:26 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु<त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. 'वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →