SEEMA RANI BANSAL,RAIKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, RAIKOT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's adverse medical conditions, the appeal should have been admitted. Upon perusal of financials, the Tribunal found that the deposits could not be entirely treated as unexplained money.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises from an order related to an assessment framed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. The AO added Rs. 5.66 Lacs as unexplained money from cash deposits. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's financial statements and business activities, and whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Seema Rani Bansal ITO Ward-1 C/o M/s Ambari Ram Bal Krishan बनाम/ Ludhiana Grain Market Vs. Raekot – 141109 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AEGPB-7906-B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Marwaha (CA) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-10-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21-03-2022. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
To verify source of cash deposit of Rs.31.70 Lacs, the case of the assessee was reopened for this year. Since the assessee failed to make any submissions during assessment proceedings, Ld. AO added the same as unexplained money to the returned income of Rs.5.66 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of 201 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee could not make representation before lower authorities due to adverse medical conditions. The Ld. AR also stated that the deposits stood fully explained by the financial statements of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR expressed doubts on business activities of the assessee.
We are of the opinion that considering adverse medical conditions being faced by the assessee, the appeal ought to have been admitted by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, we proceed with adjudication of appeal on merits. Upon perusal of assessee’s computation of income and financial statements, it could be seen that the assessee has earned commission income and declared net profit of Rs.7.02 Lacs which has been offered to tax. The assessee has reflected all the bank accounts in her financial statements. The factum of carrying out of business has been accepted by Ld. AO since the returned income has been accepted. Apparently, the bank account is a disclosed bank account which has trading receipts of the assessee. On these facts, entire deposits could not be held to be unexplained money. To plug any possible leakage of revenue, we estimate lump sum addition of Rs.2 Lacs in the hands of the assessee and delete the remaining addition. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee.
The appeal stand partly allowed. Order pronounced on 21-05-2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026