MANJU TIWARI,SILIGURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1),SILIGURI, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2493/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 January 2026AY 2023-243 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in upholding the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash credits in the form of gifts received from relatives. The reasoning was that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, which demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions and the identity of the donors. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee provides satisfactory evidence to explain cash credits, including the identity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, the AO cannot arbitrarily treat such credits as unexplained income. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manju Tiwari, is challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The specific order under challenge is not detailed in the provided excerpt, nor is the initial assessment order or the grounds for the appeal to the CIT(A). The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2023-24. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is hearing the appeal filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order. The amount in dispute is not specified in the excerpt. The procedural history leading up to the ITAT's decision is not fully elaborated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contends that the cash credits were explained by way of gifts received from relatives, and the necessary documentation was provided to the AO. The assessee argues that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the evidence submitted and wrongly confirmed the addition. The revenue, through the AO and subsequently upheld by the CIT(A), likely argued that the explanation provided by the assessee was not satisfactory or that the donors were not genuine, leading to the cash credits being treated as unexplained income. The revenue's contention would be that the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the credits, and this burden was not discharged. The specific arguments of the revenue are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश / ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 23.08.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual lady belonging to a rural background and earns her livelihood through a modest business and filed Income Tax Return declaring total income of Rs.4,16,230/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

Manju Tiwari 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex parte order on the ground that the assessee failed to respond during the appellate proceedings.

4.

The assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. However, despite issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, cannot be kept pending the appeal indefinitely and was heard ex parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR who supported the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

We have heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. From the record, it is evident that the assessee failed to furnish supporting documents in support of the claim of the assessee. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claims with supporting evidence. Accordingly, the entire matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to examine the issues afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary supporting documents. In case of failure to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), the appellate authority shall be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →