Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2015-16, despite depositing and withdrawing Rs. 3,44,84,650/- in her bank account. The assessment was reopened under Section 148, but the assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment treating the deposit as unexplained cash under Section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee produced additional evidence for the first time. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case with the new documents. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs.3,44,84,650/- under Section 69A was justified, and the validity of the notice issued under Section 148.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 142(1), 69A, 139(1), 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH
Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
Date of hearing : 23-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 24-12-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 17/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A 350/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2015-16 2 Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel Vs. ITO (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the same Assessment Year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual has not filed her Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2015-16, whereas the assessee has made deposit of Rs.3,44,84,650/- in her Allahabad Bank account and subsequently withdrawn the entire amount during the Financial Year 2014-15. Therefore the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31-03-2021. In response, the assessee failed to file the return and failed to reply to the notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore the assessing officer passed exparte assessment order treating the deposit as unexplained cash u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon.
Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) wherein also assessee failed to response to the six hearing notices given to the assessee. Thus Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer.
Aggrieved against the exparte appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
(1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making addition of Rs.3,44,84,650/- u/s. 69A of the Act? (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act? 5. In the written submission filed by the assessee, the assessee requested to admit additional evidences namely Bank Statement of I.T.A 350/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2015-16 3 Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel Vs. ITO Allahabad Bank account, Copy of Sales Bills, Copy of the Affidavit of the assessee, Copy of the purchase invoices and invoked Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld. Counsel further explained that the assessment being a reopening of assessment, assessee could not collect the required details, bank statement which was already eight years old which has resulted in passing exparte order before the Lower Authorities. However before this Tribunal, all necessary details namely bank statement, purchase & sales bills are produced for the first time. Therefore in the interest of justice, the same may be admitted and remitted back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to pass orders on merits of the case.
Ld. CIT-DR Shri Rignesh Das appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee failed to file all necessary details before the Lower Authorities so requested to impose heavy cost on the assessee for deliberate delay in filing the documents. More particularly, when the assessee failed to file original Return of Income as well as return in response to the 148 notice.
We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the additional documents filed by the assessee invoking Rule 29 of ITAT Rules. It is undisputed fact that the assessee not filed the regular return u/s. 139(1) as well as in response to the 148 notice, which has resulted in passing an exparte order and in the entire deposits in the bank account of Rs.3,44,84,650/- was added as the unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and also charging tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act.
I.T.A 350/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2015-16 4 Sangitaben Vikramkumar Patel Vs. ITO Now the assessee for the first time filed before this Tribunal produced the bank statements, copies of invoice, purchase, sales bills and Affidavit. Therefore in the Interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the orders passed by the Lower Authorities by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the assessee in favour of the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. On production of copy of the receipt of cost before Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the assessee be provided one more opportunity of hearing to explain its case with relevant documents and materials and thereafter the JAO is to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with the provisions of law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.