NARAYANA SINGH CHAYA KUMARI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide substantiating documents to the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income and was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization and investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer treated a significant amount of cash deposit as unexplained money due to lack of substantiation and completed the assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's appeal should be allowed to provide further evidence to substantiate cash deposits made during demonetization, despite previous opportunities being missed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI.LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI.KESHAV DUBEY
O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the NFAC, CIT(A)under section 250 of the Act, dated 09.08.2024.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 06.04.2018 declaring income of Rs.16,39,150/-. Return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and case was selected for scrutiny through CASS reason being cash deposited during demonetization period and investment in immovable property. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and other statutory notices were issued. Assessee furnished copy of sale deeds, copies of invoice, bank statement, copy of ITR, etc., and it was found that assessee maintained 4 bank accounts in 4 different banks where Rs.48,16,000/- cash was deposited during demonetization period but the assessee failed to substantiate with Page 2 of 3 documentary evidence regarding deposit of cash. For want of documentary evidence amount of Rs.49,68,000/- was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and income was assessed at Rs.64,5,150/- and completed assessment on 30.12.2019.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) issued several notices but there was no response from the assessee’s side. Thereforelearned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available before him.
Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the AO and submitted that notice issued by the CIT(A) might have settled in spam folder and requested for one more chance and undertook that assessee will substantiate her case with documentary evidence.
The learned DR relied on the Order of lower authorities and submitted that several chances were given by the learned CIT(A) but assessee could not notice.
Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration and decide the issue as per law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to substantiate her claim with cogent material / evidences and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted to the assessee.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Arun Aloysius Barnes vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 14 Oct 2026