TANUJA CHHATOI,CUTTACK vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),CUTTACK, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 564/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Id AR submitted there was a mistake in the representation of facts before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai. The assessee's representative submitted that there was a cash deposit of Rs.80,97,000/- in the assessee's bank account and that the assessee, being a lady, had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to a potential mistake in the representation of facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

IT Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 09/04/2025Pronounced: 09/04/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai, dated 28.11.2024, passed in ITBA/APLS/S/250/2024-25/1070708372(1) for the assessment year 2017- 2018. 2. Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty,ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that there was cash deposit of Rs.80,97,000/- in the bank account of the assessee as mentioned by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that the assessee is a lady and had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee had made submissions. The ld. JCIT(A)

1.

had held that the assessee is dealing in vegetables and fruits products and has disbelieved the transaction. It was the submission that these transactions were effectively had been in regard to the petrol pump operated by the assessee’s husband. It was the submissions that the details have not been produced properly before the ld AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee may be granted an opportunity to explain the issue before the Assessing Officer.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer ad that of the ld JCIT(A). It was the submission that there is no debit in the bank account of the assessee.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is submitted by ld AR that there has been mistake in the representation of the matter before the ld AO and ld CIT(A) in respect of the facts of assessee’s case, therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →