MINAKSHI KISHOR LOLGE,PARBHANI vs. ITO, WARD-HINGOLI, PARBHANI, PARBHANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1962/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 November 2025AY 2019-20Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing certain documents before the lower authorities and admitted additional evidence. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the assessment order under section 147. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- as an unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly confirmed the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as unexplained investment without verifying additional evidence provided by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 151A,Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate
For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule (through virtual hearing) –JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 24/11/2025Pronounced: 24/11/2025

Assessment Year: 2019-20 Minakshi Kishor Lolge, V The Income Tax Officer, Takli Kumbhakarna, Parbhani, s Ward Hingoli, Parbhani. Maharashtra – 431540. PAN: BCYPL7838J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue by Shri Ambarnath Khule (through virtual hearing) –JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 24/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2019-20 dated 24.06.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, dated 23.11.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

2.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing officer has mechanically reopened and approving authority has given sanction mechanically. Apparently, in Notice u/s 148A(b) initiation is based on assumption that assesse has made Fixed Deposit of Rs 10,00,000/- in bank, whereas assessee in response to 148A(b) has submitted that Fixed Deposit is only of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Despite the assessee's submission, while passing Order u/s 148A(d) satisfaction recorded that escapement is Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, proceedings u/s 148A is initiated and concluded by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) hence proceedings u/s 148A is violating Section 151A hence same is bad in law and accordingly subsequent Assessment Proceedings based on such illegal proceedings is also bad in law.

4. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, for A.Y.2019-20 was issued to the Assessee on 16.02.2023. The relevant paragraph of the said notice is reproduced here as under : 2

3. The Assessee filed a reply on 27.02.2023 which contains copy of 7/12 extract, copy of Bank Account Statement and an elaborate explanation with letter dated 27.03.2023.

4.

In this case, vide notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act, it has been alleged by the Assessing Officer that Assessee had deposited Rs.10 lakhs in time deposits and Assessee had not filed Return of Income. In response to the notice, Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the fixed deposit is only of Rs.5 lakhs and said fixed deposit has been made from the amount provided by Assessee’s 3 Husband i.e.Kishor Lolge. Assessee also submitted she is a housewife. She also submitted that her husband is an Agriculturalist and filed copies of 7/12 extract along with some sale bills to demonstrate sale of agricultural produce. Assessee had filed copy of Statement of Accounts of Indian Bank wherein, Fixed Deposit of Rs.5 lakhs is appearing.

5.

The Assessing Officer considered the submission of the Assessee and made an addition of Rs.5 lakhs u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraph 4.5 of the assessment order is reproduced as under : “4.5 Conclusion drawn : Although, in her written explanation the assessee reiterated that the alleged time deposits amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was sourced from her husband’s income the assessee didn't submit any single document pertaining to the transfer of the investment amount to her account from her husband's account. On request of the assessee adjournment was also granted. But no compliance was made again. The assessee also failed to furnish any compliance in response to SCN dated 09.11.2023. Moreover, the assessee failed to furnish any document to proof that the amount of investment of Rs.5,00,000/- doesn't belong to her and it belongs to her husband. Hence, the time deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee.”

6.

Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order.

7. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. The relevant paragraph 7.3 to 8 of ld.CIT(A)’s order are reproduced here as under : “7.3 the appellant assessee was accorded sufficient and ample opportunity to explain the source of cash deposit in his bank account. Considering the entirety of facts, circumstances and material on record and looking into preponderance of probabilities here the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate its claim. 7.4 Since the appellant has failed to discharge the onus which lay squarely on it, the addition made by the AO is found to be in order and is sustained. The charging section viz. 115BBE is automatic as is the charging of interest. 7.5 Grounds of appeal no. 3 & 4 are not substantiated and as such are being dismissed as not being lucid and supported. 7.6 Grounds of appeal no. 7 to 11 are general and consequential in nature as such are being dismissed.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 7.1 Thus, it can be observed that ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the assessment order only because assessee did not file the details.

8. In this case, during the proceedings before this Tribunal, ld.AR filed petition for admission of additional evidence, along with additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that since assessee was not fully conversant with the e-Proceedings, Assessee could not file the documents. Ld.AR submitted that these documents are essential to decide the issue.

9. In this case, during the assessment proceedings, Assessee had filed Copy of Statement of Account of Account No.50446343132 maintained with Indian Bank. The said account shows fixed deposit in the name of Assessee of Rs.5 lakhs. However, it is also observed that the said Rs.5 lakhs were transferred from another account. This fact has not been verified by the Assessing Officer. Assessee had already submitted during assessment proceedings that the amount was transferred by her husband. However, the Assessing Officer has not verified this issue.

10.

Ld.AR has filed additional evidence which contains following documents : 1. Confirmation Letter from Mr.KishorLolge 2. Copy of Pan Card and Aadhaar Card of Mr.KishorLolge 3. Udyam Registration Certificate of Rohit Jewellers 4. Confirmation Letter from Bank 5. Copy of Bank Transfer Advice

11.

The above evidences goes to the root of the issue. We are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the above documents before the Assessing Officer / ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we admit the additional evidence filed by the Assessee. However, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to 6 [A] ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall allow assessee to file the additional evidence, additional ground and the documents already filed before the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

12.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →